BS  2415  .G552  1899 

Gilbert,  George  Holley,  1854 

-1930. 
The  revelation  of  Jesus 


THE    REVELATION    OF   JESUS 


T&Vfa 


THE 


REVELATION    OF    JESUS 


A   STUDY   OF   THE    PRIMARY   SOURCES 
OF   CHRISTIANITY 


BY 

GEORGE   HOLLEY   GILBERT,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF   NEW  TESTAMENT   LITERATURE  AND   INTERPRETATION 

IN   CHICAGO   THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

AUTHOR  OF  "THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF  JESUS  "   AND 

"  THE  STUDENT'S   LIFE  OF   PAUL  " 


Nefaj  fgotk 
THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

LONDON:    MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Ltd. 
I899 

All  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1899, 
By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Ncrfoooti  ^reS3 

J.  S.  dishing  &  Co.  -  Berwick  &  Smith 

Norwood  Mass.  U.S.A. 


TO 

IKS  fHotlicr  ant!  i«a  SUttfe 

ONE   EMBODYING   THE   GENTLENESS   AND   PATIENCE   OF   JESUS 
AND   THE   OTHER   HIS   SELF-FORGETFULNESS 

Eijis  Book  is  ©totcateti 

IN    HIS    NAME 


PREFACE 

No  subject  of  historical  investigation  lies  so  near  to 
the  life  of  the  Church  as  does  the  revelation  of  Jesus ; 
and  yet  many  subjects  have  received  a  far  larger  meas- 
ure of  attention.  We  have,  in  English,  but  one  scien- 
tific discussion  of  the  entire  subject  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  so  far  as  I  know,  and  that  is  a  translation  of 
Professor  Wendt's  work.  Single  topics  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  have  been  investigated  in  recent  years  in 
America  and  England,  as  well  as  on  the  continent 
of  Europe,  by  such  eminent  scholars  as  Briggs,  Bruce, 
Fairbairn,  Haupt,  and  Baldensperger ;  and  works  on 
the  theology  of  the  New  Testament,  notably  those  of 
Weiss,  Beyschlag,  and  Bovon,  contain  a  condensed 
treatment  of  the  whole  teaching  of  Jesus ;  but  it  still 
remains  true  that  this  most  vital  subject  has  received 
relatively  little  scientific  attention. 

The  revelation  of  Jesus  must  be  historically  investi- 
gated, and  yet  it  is  so  intimately  associated  with  our 
most  sacred  thoughts  and  feelings  that  a  student  shrinks 
from  claiming  that  his  investigation  is  absolutely  his- 
torical.    I  can  only  say  that  this  has  been  my  constant 


Vlli  PREFACE 

aim,  and  that  never,  in  the  interpretation  of  a  single 
passage  or  in  the  presentation  of  inductions  from  a 
group  of  passages,  have  I  consciously  had  regard  either 
to  my  own  former  views  or  to  the  theological  conse- 
quences that  might  follow  from  the  results  at  which 
I  had  arrived.  I  have  tried  to  follow  the  thought  of 
Jesus  with  the  utmost  accuracy,  and  I  have  certainly 
done  so  with  the  conviction  that  His  thought  is  of  infi- 
nite value  both  to  me  and  to  all  men.  I  ask,  therefore, 
that  the  reader  will  not  apply  to  this  book  any  other 
test  than  the  historical  one.  It  may  be  that  some  of 
its  results  are  at  variance  with  this  or  that  creed,  or 
with  some  ancient  and  esteemed  system  of  theology ; 
but  they  may  be  quite  true,  nevertheless.  Yet  whether 
they  are  true  or  not  is  a  question  which  can  never  be 
answered  by  comparing  them  with  traditional  beliefs. 
A  theological  test  for  a  historical  work  is  no  test  at  all. 
We  can  get  forward  in  Christian  thought  only  as  we 
become  better  grounded  in  the  thought  of  Jesus.  It 
would  doubtless  be  wholesome  to  test  our  theologies  by 
the  teaching  of  Jesus ;  but  it  must  be  fatal  to  our  Chris- 
tianity to  subordinate  His  teaching  to  our  theologies. 

The  revelation  of  Jesus,  as  has  been  said,  is  a  subject 
for  historical  investigation.  Its  sources  are  the  Gospels. 
The  time  is  certainly  past  when  any  student  need  to 
apologize  for  regarding  these  documents  as  essentially 
trustworthy.       This    quality    is    visibly    stamped    upon 


PREFACE  ix 

them,  and  the  stamp  is  attested  by  the  unbroken  exist- 
ence and  the  unwasting  power  of  the  Church  itself. 
But  it  is  also  plain  that  these  writings  differ  among 
themselves  in  multitudes  of  details  and  occasionally  in 
points  of  considerable  importance,  and  that  they  all, 
though  in  varying  degree,  show  the  influence  of  the 
times  in  which  they  originated.  Therefore  a  scientific 
investigation  of  their  content  must  take  account  of  these 
facts,  and  must  seek  by  critical  study  to  get  back  as 
nearly  as  possible  to  the  original  teaching.  But  I  have 
thought  it  wise  not  to  introduce  this  critical  study  of 
the  text  into  my  book  except  in  instances  where  it 
appeared  to  be  quite  necessary. 

The  teaching  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  so  variously 
and  so  widely  unlike  that  of  the  Synoptists,  at  least  on 
its  formal  side,  that  it  is  presented  by  itself.  The 
reader,  therefore,  can  readily  observe  the  differences 
between  these  ancient  documents  and  can  judge  of  its 
significance. 

It  remains  to  say  only  this  word  more,  that  I  have 
sought  to  get  at  Jesus'  point  of  view,  and  to  observe  the 
proportions  which  different  subjects  have  in  His  teach- 
ing. This  is  the  plain  duty  of  one  who  will  make  a 
historical  investigation.  To  dissect  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  and  arrange  its  fragments  under  any  artificial 
outline  of  theology  is  to  miss,  in  large  measure,  its 
meaning  and  to  lose  its  power.     We  must  go  as  little 


x  PREFACE 

children  and  listen  to  all  that  Jesus  says,  and  observe 
how  and  when  and  to  whom  He  speaks,  and  must  also 
mark  His  treatment  of  men.  In  this  way  only  can  we 
approach  a  right  judgment  of  His  revelation. 

Hag  W  rorjo  is  himself  tfje  trutrj  fnrjicrj  P?e  rebeate,  ant)  forjo 
v&  more  anti  more  repealing  to  mm  tfje  tnitjj  tofjtcfj  P^e  is, 
btesg  tfjiis  anti  eoerg  effort  to  get  nearer  to  ftfe  ujougfjt 
anti  life. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER    I 

PAGES 

The  New  Revelation  of  God i 

CHAPTER   II 
The  Kingdom  of  Heaven 30 

CHAPTER   III 
The  Life  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven     ....      62 

CHAPTER   IV 
The  Outward  Development  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven     145 

CHAPTER   V 
The  Person  of  Jesus  the  Messiah 167 

CHAPTER   VI 
The  Messiah's  Earthly  Work 229 

CHAPTER   VII 
The  Consummation  of  the  Messiah's  Kingdom       .        .     284 


Index  of  Subjects 363 

Index  of  Passages  from  the  Gospels  .  367 


THE  REVELATION  OF  JESUS 

CHAPTER    I 

The  New  Revelation  of  God 

In  the  religion  of  Jesus,  as  in  all  religions,  the  con- 
ception of  God  is  fundamental.  The  one  subject  on 
which  Jesus  claimed  to  have  unique  and  t  The  point 
absolute  knowledge  was  the  Heavenly  of  departure. 
Father  (Mt.  xi.  27).  The  vital  moulding  force  of  His 
own  inner  life  was  the  consciousness  of  God,  and  by 
this  consciousness  His  views  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
were  essentially  determined.  Moreover,  what  He 
realized  in  Himself  as  the  light  and  the  power  of  a 
divine  life,  He  sought  to  realize  in  each  member  of 
the  kingdom  which  He  came  to  establish.  It  is, 
therefore,  necessary,  in  presenting  the  truths  which 
Jesus  taught,  to  begin  with  His  conception  of  God. 
For  although  it  is  true  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is   largely   the    burden    of    the    preaching    of    Jesus,1 

1  See  W.  Liitgert,  Das  Reich  Gotles,  p.  8;   W.  Beyschlag,  Neutestament- 
liche   Theologie,  i.  40. 


2  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

we  cannot  begin  with  that  subject  because  His  thought 
of  the  kingdom  depends  on  His  thought  of  God ;  nor 
should  a  presentation  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  begin 
with  a  discussion  of  His  relation  to  the  Law,1  as  though 
His  religious  conceptions  had  their  origin  in  a  sense  of 
the  imperfection  of  that  Law.  He  certainly  saw  the 
Law's  imperfection,  and  early  in  His  ministry  began  to 
criticise  both  the  living  interpreters  of  the  Law,  and  the 
Law  itself,  thereby  giving  mortal  offence  to  the  scribes ; 
but  His  thought  of  the  Law  depended  upon  His  thought 
of  God,  and  He  did  not  appear  in  Israel  as  the  promul- 
gator of  new  ideas  about  the  Law,  but  rather  as  "insti- 
tuting a  new  religion,  revealing  a  new  God  to  man,  and 
making  man  a  new  being  to  God."  2 

Accordingly,  our  point  of  departure,  in  setting  forth 
the  content  of  the  revelation  of  Jesus,  must  be  His 
thought  of  God,  for  this  was  the  fountain-head  of  all 
His  religious  and  ethical  teaching.  Yet  the  revelation 
of  God  which  Jesus  gave  to  the  world  was  not  abso- 
lutely new,  certainly  not  as  a  doctrine.3  Moses  and  the 
prophets  had  caught  occasional  glimpses  of  that  truth 
in  regard  to  the  Divine  Being  which  Jesus  fully  pos- 
sessed, but  their  glimpses  of  this  truth  did  not  deeply 

1  See  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  I.ehrbuch  der  neutestamentlichen  Theologie, 
i.  130-131. 

2  See  Fairbairn,  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  p.  245. 

3  Comp.  H.  H.  Wendt,  Die  Lehrc  Jesu,  ii.  139. 


THE  NEW   REVELATION   OF   GOD  3 

affect  the  popular  conception  of  God,  while  the  revela- 
tion which  Jesus  gave  in  word  and  in  life  undoubtedly 
marks  the  greatest  advance  in  the  religious  history  of 
mankind.  In  order,  therefore,  to  appreciate  fully  the 
thought  of  God  which  Jesus  had,  we  must  consider  what 
the  Jewish  people  had  thought  before  His  time,  and 
also  the  views  of  His  contemporaries. 

The  first  of  the  great  prerogatives  of  the  Jewish 
people,  which  are  enumerated  by  Paul,  is  2<  Father- 
the  adoption  (Rom.  ix.  4),  that  is,  the  ap-  jn™de°o^od 
pointment  of  Israel  to  be,  in  a  peculiar  Testament, 
sense,  God's  son.  The  apostle,  therefore,  thought  of 
God  as  Israel's  father,  and  he  derived  this  thought 
from  the  Old  Testament.  God's  message  to  Pharaoh 
by  Moses  involved  a  paternal  relationship  to  Israel. 
Moses  was  to  say,  in  God's  name,  "  Israel  is  my  son, 
my  first-born"  (Ex.  iv.  22).  This  language  implies 
that  other  peoples  also  were  sons  of  Jehovah,  in  the 
thought  of  Moses,  but  Israel  was  the  first-bom,  a  pecul- 
iar treasure  from  among  all  peoples  (Ex.  xix.  5).  Again 
Deuteronomy  represents  Moses  as  saying  to  the  people, 
"  As  a  man  chasteneth  his  son,  so  the  Lord  thy  God 
chasteneth  thee  "  (Deut.  viii.  5  ;  xxxii.  6);  and  the  Lord 
says  in  Hosea  that  when  Israel  was  a  child,  He  loved 
him  and  called  His  son  out  of  Egypt  (Hos.  xi.  1  ;  i.  10). 
In  these  passages,  and  in  a  few  more,1  God  is  thought 

1  See  Jer.  iii.  4 ;  xxxi.  9;    I  Chron.  xxix.  10;   Mai.  ii.  10. 


4  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

of  as  a  father  to  the  people  of  Israel  as  a  whole,  and  He  is 
the  father  of  Israel  because  He  made  them  a  nation,  and 
established  them  by  His  mighty  power  (Deut.  xxxii.  6). 
Thus  His  fatherhood  is  national  rather  than  individual. 
In  some  instances,  however,  the  Old  Testament  in- 
dividualizes God's  fatherhood,  at  least  in  those  pas- 
sages in  which  the  Messianic  king  is  called  the  Son  of 
God.  The  Lord  says  of  the  theocratic  descendant  of 
David,  "  I  will  be  his  father  and  he  shall  be  my  son  " 
(2  Sam.  vii.  14),  and  the  Messianic  king  puts  the 
decree  of  Jehovah  concerning  himself  in  these  words, 
"  Thou  art  my  son  :  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee " 
(Ps.  ii.  7).  With  reference  to  other  persons  also  the 
fatherhood  of  God  seems  to  be  individualized  in  the 
Psalter,  for  He  is  called  the  father  of  the  fatherless, 
and  it  is  said  that  the  pity  which  He  feels  for  those 
who  fear  Him  is  like  the  pity  of  a  father  for  his  chil- 
dren (Ps.  lxviii.  5;  ciii.  13).  And  this  individualized 
fatherhood  is  suffused  with  the  glow  of  a  divine  tender- 
ness in  Isaiah,  where  God  is  one  who  gathers  the  lambs 
in  His  arms  and  carries  them  in  His  bosom,  and  who 
comforts  His  people  as  a  mother  comforts  her  chil- 
dren (Is.  xl.  11;  lxvi.  13).  Yet  in  all  these  passages, 
even  those  which  most  nearly  approach  the  spirit  of 
the  Gospels,  we  see  only  the  relation  of  God  to  His 
chosen  people  or  to  His  chosen  king.  The  word 
fatJier  is  not  yet  a  name  of  God,  a  description  of  His 


THE   NEW    REVELATION    OF   GOD  5 

very  character,  but  rather  "  a  designation  of  His  cove- 
nant relationship  with  the  people."  x  Moreover,  these 
words  concerning  God  which  we  have  considered  are 
only  as  rare  flowers  from  the  heights  of  Old  Testa- 
ment revelation,  and  we  cannot  judge  from  their 
fragrance  how  the  people  as  a  whole,  and  through 
the  centuries,  thought  of  Jehovah. 

The  foundation  of  Old  Testament  life,  at  least 
from  the  time  of  Josiah,  as  well  as  the  foundation 
of  a  large  part  of  Old  Testament  literature,  was  the 
Law ;  and  as  all  the  people  had  trembled  when  the 
Law  was  given,  hearing  the  thunders  and  the  voice 
of  the  trumpet,  and  seeing  the  thick  clouds  and  the 
lightnings,  so  under  the  Law's  regime  they  continued 
to  tremble  with  fear  and  awe.  The  Law,  it  is  true, 
had  a  gracious  side,  when  read  by  the  apostle  from  his 
Christian  point  of  view  (Rom.  x.  5-13),  but  to  one 
without  his  illumination  it  was,  in  the  main,  terribly 
stern.  The  God  who  stood  behind  the  Law  was  appre- 
hended as  a  God  of  holiness  and  of  mighty  power, 
a  God  whose  favor  was  to  be  secured  only  by  strict 
observance  of  its  numerous  ordinances.  Even  the 
.most  earnest  spirits  under  the  Old  Dispensation  found 
that  the  Law  developed  fear  instead  of  trust,  and  felt 
that  it  was  a  yoke  too  heavy  to  be  borne  (Rom.  viii. 
15;   Gal.  v.    1;    Acts   xv.    10).      The  visions  of    Isaiah 

1  See  Hermann  Schultz,  Alttestamentliche  Theologie,  p.  528. 


6  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

did  not  alter  the  severe  rule  of  the  Law,  or  modify 
its  cold,  majestic  conception  of  God.  In  the  Old 
Testament  ritual  God  is  represented  as  enthroned 
above  the  cherubim,  unapproachable  to  all  the  people 
save  the  high  priest,  and  to  him  on  all  days  of  the 
year  save  the  Day  of  Atonement;  and  to  this  cere- 
monial of  worship  the  life  of  the  saints  seems  to  have 
corresponded.  God  was  to  them  a  great  king  dwell- 
ing afar,  one  who  was  to  be  feared  and  obeyed  for 
the  gifts  which  He  could  bestow  rather  than  for  the 
sake  of  His  own  divine  companionship. 

The  Jewish  conceptions  of  God  in  the  time  of  Jesus 
were  based  upon  the  Law,  but  they  had  been  colored 
3.  Jewish  by  Greek  thought,  and  had  been  still  more 
views  of  God  deeply  affected  by  that  amazing  development 
jesus.  of   the   Law  which  occupied  the  synagogue 

during  the  long  period  between  Ezra,  "the  perfect 
scribe,"  and  Jesus  the  Messiah.  It  is  true  that  Juda- 
ism preserved  itself  in  a  marvellous  way  from  foreign 
influences.  In  building  a  hedge  around  the  Law,  as 
the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue :  had  taught,2  Judaism 
built  a  strong  high  wall  around  itself.  The  leaders 
saw  a  future  for  the  people  only  in  a  rigid  fulfilment- 
of  the  Law.     Moreover,  with    the    growth    of   the   in- 

1  See  Schiirer,  Die  Geschichte  desjildischen  Vo/kes,  ii.  291-292;  Weber, 
Die  Lehren  des  Talmuds,  pp.  6,  38. 

2  See  Jost,  Entdecktes  Judenthum,  i.  95;  Barclay,  The    Talmud,  p.  218. 


THE  NEW   REVELATION   OF  GOD  J 

fluence  of  the  synagogue  came  the  growth  of  that 
view  of  the  Old  Testament  which  regarded  it  as  the 
depository  of  all  useful  wisdom.  There  was  nothing 
to  be  learned  from  other  peoples.  God  had  given 
but  one  revelation  of  His  will,  and  that  revelation, 
infinite  in  content,  was  in  the  Law.1  And  yet  the 
influence  of  Greek  thought  could  not  be  wholly  resisted. 
The  Hellenization  of  the  Jews  who  were  scattered 
abroad,  especially  of  the  great  numbers  who  dwelt  in 
Alexandria,  reacted  upon  the  ideas  of  the  Jews  who 
dwelt  in  Palestine.  Then,  too,  a  party  arose  within 
Judaism  itself,  namely  the  Sadducees,  who  were 
favorable  toward  foreign  culture  and  worship. 

With  reference  to  the  conception  of  God,  which  we 
are  now  considering,  it  became  more  abstract  and  tran- 
scendental as  it  came  into  contact  with  Greek  thought, 
and  apparently  because  of  this  contact.  This  tendency 
toward  the  abstract  is  manifest  already  in  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  which  was  begun  as 
far  back  as  the  third  century  B.C.,  and  which  came  to 
have  such  influence  even  in  Palestine  that  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  usually  quote  from  it  rather  than 
from  the  Hebrew  original  or  from  Aramaic  versions. 
Thus,  in  this  Greek  version,  God  is  not  called  "  a  man 
of  war"  (Ex.  xv.  3),  but  He  is  "the  Lord  who  makes 
war."     Moses  does  not  go  up  to  God  in  the  mountain, 

1  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Ta/muds,  pp.  84-86. 


8  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

as  the  original  reads  (Ex.  xix.  3),  but  he  goes  up  to  the 
mount  of  God.  The  slave  who  is  to  be  set  free  is  not 
brought  unto  God  (Ex.  xxi.  6),  but  unto  the  judgment  of 
God.  Moses  and  those  with  him  did  not  see  the  God  of 
Israel  (Ex.  xxiv.  9-10),  but  they  saw  the  place  where 
He  stood.  Such  changes  as  these  indicate1  that  the 
translators  no  longer  held  just  the  same  conception  of 
God  which  the  Old  Testament  writers  had.2  They 
shrink  from  the  idea  that  men  may  come  into  contact 
with  Him. 

We  referred  also  to  the  synagogue  or  rabbinism  as 
another  source  of  modification  of  the  Old  Testament 
conception  of  God.  The  scribe  with  the  written  letter 
took  the  place  of  the  prophet  with  his  living  message. 
The  fundamental  principle  that  a  hedge  should  be  built 
around  the  Law  to  the  end  that  even  its  least  statutes 
might  not  be  transgressed,  led  to  an  increasing  exag- 
geration of  the  ceremonial  side  of  the  Law.  This  may 
be  seen,  for  example,  in  the  early  apocryphal  writings 
of  Tobit  and  Judith,3  and  still  more  abundantly  in  the 
Gospels,  which  reflect  current  views  of  their  day.  It  is 
illustrated  also  in  the  Maccabean  period  by  the  fact 
that  the  Jewish  soldiers  allowed  themselves  to  be  cut 

1  Comp.  J.  Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus,\.  157-166;  Langen,  Das  Juden- 
thum  in  Palaestina  zur  Zeit  Christi,  p.  204. 

2  A  trace  of  the  same  tendency  appears  in  Wisdom  i.  7. 

3  See  Tobit  i.  6;   iv.  10;   xii.  9;  Judith  xii.  2,  7,  9. 


THE   NEW   REVELATION   OF   GOD  9 

down  in  cold  blood  on  the  Sabbath,  rather  than  profane 
the  law  of  the  Sabbath  by  self-defence  (1  Mace.  ii.  34- 
38).  We  see  from  the  Gospels  that  the  popular  religion 
of  that  day  had  become  wholly  externalized  and  legalis- 
tic. Only  through  the  outward  and  material  could  men 
approach  and  please  the  God  of  heaven.  The  same 
tendency  which  we  have  seen  illustrated  in  the  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament  appears,  at  a  later  day,  in 
Palestinian  literature.  The  Targums  of  Onkelos  and 
Jonathan1  remove  from  the  Old  Testament  any  expres- 
sions which  imply  the  personal  nearness  of  God  to  men. 
Thus  in  Gen.  xxviii.  13,  which  says  that  Jehovah  stood 
above  the  ladder  that  Jacob  saw  in  his  dream,  we  read 
in  Onkelos  that  the  glory  of  Jehovah  stood  above  it ; 
and  instead  of  the  face  of  God  in  Deut.  xxxii.  20  we  have 
His  shekinah.  In  Gen.  xviii.  8,  where  it  is  said  that  the 
Lord  and  His  two  companions  ate  of  the  repast  fur- 
nished by  Abraham,  Onkelos  says,  "  it  seemed  to  him 
as  though  they  ate."  Moreover,  the  Memra,  or  word 
of  the  Lord,  appears  in  the  Targums  where  the  Scrip- 
ture text  speaks  in  an  anthropomorphic  way  concerning 
God,  or  uses  language  that  implies  His  nearness  to 
men.2     Thus  the  conception  of  God  became  more  and 

1  Written  before  70  A.D.  See  Gfrorer,  Das  Jahrhundert  des  J/ei/s,  i. 
36-58. 

2  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmuds,  pp.  174-179;  Langen,  Das 
Judenthum  in  Palaestina  zur  Zeit  Christi,  p.  213;  Gfrorer,  Das  Jahr- 
hundert des  I/ei/s,  i.  292-293. 


10  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

more  transcendental.1  It  is  not  He  Himself  who  has 
ever  come  into  contact  with  men,  but  simply  this  or  that 
agent  sent  from  His  presence.  The  elaborate  Jewish 
doctrine  of  angels  went  naturally  with  this  conception 
of  God,  for,  as  He  was  thought  to  be  infinitely  removed 
from  contact  with  mankind,  it  was  necessary  to  have 
many  messengers  moving  between  Him  and  the  earth.2 
But  while  this  Jewish  conception  of  God  was  thus 
transcendental,  it  was  not  spiritual.  We  may  not  be 
justified  in  carrying  back  to  the  times  of  Jesus  such 
ideas  as  we  find  in  the  Talmud  of  Jerusalem,  and  yet 
the  Judaism  of  this  writing  probably  differs  in  degree 
rather  than  in  kind  from  the  Judaism  of  the  first 
century.  The  Talmud  of  Jerusalem  represents  God 
as  a  great  rabbi,  somewhat  as  the  Greeks  in  Homer's 
time  thought  of  Zeus  as  an  indefinitely  magnified  man. 
The  rabbis  taught  that  God  spends  His  time  in  heaven 
as  they  spent  theirs  on  earth.  He  studies  the  Law 
three  hours  each  day,  and  observes  all  its  ordinances. 
He  keeps  the  Sabbath.  He  makes  vows,  and  the 
heavenly  sanhedrin  releases  Him  when  the  vow  has 
been  performed.  He  also  fulfils  the  injunction  to 
rise   up   before   the   hoary  head.3     This   conception   of 

1  Comp.  Bousset,  Die  Predigt  Jesu  in  ihrem  Gegensatz  zwn  Judenthum, 
p.  14. 

2  Comp.  Beyschlag,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  i.  88-89. 

8  See  Gfrorer,  Das  Jahrhundert  des  Heils,  i.  276;   Weber,  Die  Lehren 
des  Ta/muds,ipp-  17-18. 


THE  NEW   REVELATION   OF  GOD  n 

God  manifestly  had  as  little  ethical  elevation  as  had 
the  life  of  the  scribes.  In  this  respect  it  fell  immeas- 
urably below  the  prophetic  conception  of  Jehovah. 

It  is  true  that  a  common  name  of  God  in  the  time 
of  Jesus  was  the  Holy  O/ic,  but  the  rabbinic  concep- 
tion of  holiness  was  superficial.  We  see  the  scribe's 
idea  of  holiness  in  his  own  life  and  endeavor.  He 
washed  the  outside  of  cups  and  platters,  while  his 
own  heart  was  full  of  extortion  and  excess  (Mt.  xxiii. 
25).  His  holiness  was  ceremonial,  not  vital.  And 
this  was  his  thought  of  the  holiness  of  God.  It  was 
removal  from  ceremonial  uncleanness,  and  hence  was 
physical  rather  than  moral.  To  the  Pharisee,  the 
thought  that  God  could  regard  with  any  favor  a  man 
who  was  Levitically  unclean  was  repellent,  and  he 
drew  his  robes  about  him  with  horror  when  Jesus 
ate  with  publicans  and  sinners. 

These  conceptions  of  God  of  which  we  have  spoken 
were  doubtless  not  at  any  time  shared  by  all  the 
people  of  Palestine,  and  certainly  not  by  all  in  the 
Dispersion.  Ben  Sirach  in  the  second  century  B.C., 
and  John  the  Baptist  at  the  close  of  the  first  century 
B.C.,  are  proof  that  here  and  there  men  appeared  who 
had  relatively  noble  and  spiritual  conceptions  of  God, 
—  conceptions  which  remind  us  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets.  Ben  Sirach,  though  strongly  predestinarian 
in  his  thought  of  God  {e.g.  xxxiii.  10-13),  and  though 


12  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

having  a  legalistic  type  of  religion  {e.g.  iii.  30),  rises 
at  times  to  large  and  worthy  views  of  the  Divine 
Being.  Thus  he  says  that  the  mercy  of  God  is  upon 
all  flesh  (xviii.  13),  and  he  speaks  with  feeling  of  the 
loving-kindness  and  compassion  of  the  Lord  (xvii.  29). 
John  the  Baptist  was  far  in  advance  of  Ben  Sirach 
in  the  spirituality  of  his  religious  conceptions.  He 
was  able  to  commune  with  God  in  the  wilderness, 
without  the  aid  of  legal  ceremonies  which  were  all 
in  all  to  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  of  his  day ;  and 
he  thought  of  God  as  one  who  looks  at  the  heart 
rather  than  at  the  outward  observances  of  piety. 
Therefore  he  preached  repentance,  that  men  might 
be  prepared  for  fellowship  with  this  spiritual  and 
holy    God. 

As  Ben  Sirach  and  John  the  Baptist  represent  the 
best  Palestinian  conceptions  of  God  to  be  found  in 
their  respective  ages,  conceptions  much  higher  than 
the  dominant  ones,  so  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  *  shows 
us  that  among  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  there  were 
not  wanting  elevated  views  of  the  Lord.  Thus  the 
author  of  this  book  says  of  God,  — 

"  To  know  Thee  is  perfect  righteousness. 
And  to  know  Thy  power  is  the  root  of  immortality.'"    (xv.  3.) 


1  Probably  written    ls.C.      See   Schurer,    Die    Ceschichte   des  jiidischen 
Volkes,  ii.  758  ;    Farrar  in  Wace's  Apocrypha,  i.  420. 


THE  NEW   REVELATION   OF   GOD  13 

Again,    he    thinks   of    God    as   God    over    all,    and    of 

tender  love,  when  he  says,  — 

"  Thou  sparest  all,  for  they  are  Thine,  sovereign  Soul-lover, 
For  Thine  immortal  spirit  is  in  all."    (xi.  26.) 

But  the  view  of  God  which  was  held  even  by  these 
exceptional  men,  though  higher  than  the  common 
view  of  their  times,  was  not  different  from  the  gen- 
eral Old  Testament  conception.  We  read  in  Wisdom 
that  God  is  the  father  of  Israel  as  a  people  (ix.  7; 
xviii.  3),  and  that  the  individual  righteous  man  may 
call  Him  father  (ii.  16);  but  the  author  never  thinks 
of  Him  as  the  father  of  the  sinful  and  the  lost.  On 
the  contrary,  he  declares  that  God  loves  nothing  save 
the  man  who  dwells  with  wisdom  (vii.  28),  and  de- 
clares that  while  God  dealt  in  fatherly  love  with 
Israel,  He  dealt  with  the  Gentiles  as  a  severe  king 
(xi.  10;  xii.  22).  Thus  the  father-name  here  as  in 
the  Old  Testament  describes  God's  treatment  of  the 
righteous  rather  than  the  character  of  God  in  itself. 
We  pass  now  from  the  Old  Testament  and  the  later 
Jewish  writings  to  the  Gospels;  and  in  doing  gl 

so  we  shall  find  that  between  the  dominant  conception 

of  God 

Old  Testament   conception  of   God  and  the  grounded  in 

experience. 

conception  of  Him  which  Jesus  had,  the  con- 
trast is  profound  ;  while  between  the  contemporaneous 
Jewish  conception  and  that  of  Jesus,  there  is  an  illimit- 
able gulf. 


14  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  on  the  fatherhood  of  God  is  a 
teaching  out  of  His  inmost  experience.1  He  first  knew 
God  as  His  own  father.  The  story  which  Luke  gives 
us  out  of  the  boyhood  of  Jesus  shows  that  His  con- 
sciousness of  being  a  child  of  God  must  have  belonged 
to  the  very  opening  of  His  mental  and  moral  life  (Lk. 
ii.  49).  This  consciousness  surely  was  not  awakened 
by  the  doctors  in  the  temple  among  whom  Jesus  sat  as 
a  boy  of  twelve  years.  They  were  not  the  teachers  on 
that  occasion,  but  rather  the  taught.  They  marvelled  at 
Jesus'  insight  into  the  Scripture  —  an  insight  which  He 
had  of  course  been  gaining  prior  to  His  twelfth  year. 
We  cannot  doubt  that  this  spiritual  insight  into  the 
word  of  God  stood  in  a  very  close  relation  to  the  con- 
sciousness of  God's  presence  and  fatherly  love.  From 
His  later  knowledge  of  the  word  of  God,  as  indicated 
by  His  teaching,  we  may  surely  infer  that  His  earliest 
knowledge  which  He  exhibited  in  the  temple  was  not  of 
the  rabbinical  sort.  Jesus  did  not  astonish  the  scribes 
by  a  prodigious  memory  of  the  letter  of  the  Law,  or 
by  a  precocious  subtlety  in  manipulating  the  text  of 
Scripture  so  as  to  make  it  yield  a  meaning  opposite  to 
its  obvious  sense.  Such  a  hypothesis  would  not  only 
destroy  the  unity  of  His  spiritual  development,  but  it 
would  also  be  in  direct  antagonism  with  the  fact  that 

1  Comp.  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Lekrbuch  der  neutestamentlichen  Theologie, 
i.  247. 


THE  NEW   REVELATION   OF  GOD  15 

Jesus  was  conscious  at  this  time  of  moral  harmony  with 
God,  which  consciousness  could  neither  spring  from  a 
rabbinical  knowledge  of  Scripture,  nor  exist  by  its  side. 

The  knowledge  of  Scripture  shown  by  the  questions 
and  answers  of  Jesus  must  have  been  of  a  spiritual  sort 
—  a  knowledge  of  the  heart  of  revelation.  It  was,  of 
course,  a  boy's  knowledge,  not  a  man's ;  but  it  was  the 
knowledge  of  a  boy  whose  heart  was  pure,  and  who 
walked  continually  in  the  clear  light  of  God.  Such  a 
knowledge  presupposes  that  the  words  "  my  Father'' 
did  not  express  a  conception  that  was  new  to  the  spirit 
of  Jesus  when  He  appeared  among  the  doctors  in  the 
temple,  but  rather  that  they  expressed  a  consciousness 
which  His  memory  could  follow  back  to  the  beginning 
of  His  religious  life.  Indeed,  we  have  no  ground  to 
suppose  that  Jesus  ever  thought  of  God  otherwise  than 
as  His  father.  Nothing  suggests  that  He  reached  this 
conception  through  a  period  of  struggle  and  doubt. 

When  we  take  up  the  Synoptic  record  of  the  words  of 
Jesus,  we  find  that  His  use  of  the  father-name  is  what 
we  should  expect  from  the  early  conversation 

r  J  5.  Use  of  the 

in  the  temple.     Whenever  the  personal  rela-  father-name 

by  Jesus. 

tion  between   God  and  Himself  is  involved, 
He  employs  no  name  but  father,  if  we  except  a  single 
passage  where  he  quotes  from  the  twenty-second  Psalm 
(Mk.  xv.  34).     In  each  of  the  five  prayers  where  the 
words  of  Jesus  are  given,  He  addresses  God  as  father 


1 6  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

(Mt.  xi.  25-27;  xxvi.  39,  42;  Lk.  xxiii.  34,  46),  and  in 
the  longest  of  these,  which  includes  but  three  verses, 
the  name  is  repeated  five  times.  When  speaking  of 
God  in  the  third  person,  Jesus  refers  to  Him  once  as 
"the  great  King"  (Mt.  v.  35),  and  once  as  "  Lord  of 
the  harvest  "  (Mt.  ix.  38),  but  in  almost  every  case 
He  uses  the  name  "  God  "  or  the  name  "  father."  He 
never  employs  such  circumlocutions  as  "The  Blessed 
One"  and  "The  Holy  One";  and  never  uses  abstract 
designations  such  as  "  Place,"  all  of  which  were  common 
in  the  synagogue. 

The  name  with  which  Jesus  addresses  God  is  also  the 
name  which  He  puts  upon  the  lips  of  His  disciples. 
They  are  to  enjoy  the  same  intimacy  that  He  enjoys, 
and  say  with  Him,  "  Father  "  (Mt.  vi.  9 ;  xxiii.  9).  It 
is  instructive  to  compare  with  this  usage  the  language 
which  Jesus  puts  on  the  lips  of  the  Pharisee  and  the 
publican  in  one  of  His  parables  (Lk.  xviii.  11-13). 
Even  the  penitent  publican,  whose  spirit  was  right  in 
the  sight  of  the  Lord,  is  represented  as  saying  "  God," 
and  not  "Father."  This  portrayal  was  doubtless  true 
to  life.  In  the  Gospels  no  one  but  Jesus  speaks  of  God 
as  his  father.1 

The  fatherhood  of  God,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  is 

1  In  Jn.  i.  18;  viii.  27;  xiii.  3  the  author  speaks  from  his  own  Chris- 
tian point  of  view;  and  in  iii.  35  he  attributes  his  own  Christian  usage  to 
the  Baptist. 


THE  NEW   REVELATION   OF   GOD  17 

not  accidental,  not  conditioned  upon  this  or  that  hu- 
man circumstance,  but  it  is  essential.  He  is  fatherly 
because  He  is  God.  He  is  such  an  one  in  5.  The  name 
Himself  that  He  takes  thought  for  our  daily  Scribes 
bread,  and  numbers  the  hairs  of  our  heads  what  God  is. 
(Mt.  vi.  11;  x.  30).  He  is  ready  to  give  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  and  the  vision  of  Himself  to  the  poor  in 
spirit  and  the  pure  in  heart  (Mt.  v.  3,  8).  That  is  to 
say,  He  is  in  Himself  such  an  one  that  He  freely  gives 
the  best  He  has  to  those  who  desire  it.  He  is  the  one 
who  is  absolutely  and  unchangeably  good  (Mk.  x.  18), 
and  whom,  therefore,  it  is  man's  first  and  divinest 
obligation  to  love  and  serve  (Mk.  xii.  30 ;  Mt.  xxii. 
37-40).  As  it  is  the  very  nature  of  a  father  to  give 
good  gifts  to  his  children,  so  it  is  the  very  nature  of 
God  to  give  His  good  gifts  to  those  who  ask  Him 
(Mt.  vii.   11  ;   Lk.  xi.   13). 

The  character  of  God's  fatherhood  is  perfectly  por- 
trayed by  Jesus  in  His  story  of  the  Lost  Son  (Lk. 
xv.  11-32).  This  parable  was  spoken  in  defence  of 
Jesus'  acceptance  of  publicans  and  other  disreputable 
people.  These  classes  are  represented  by  the  younger 
son.  Now  the  father  in  the  parable,  through  whom 
Jesus  wishes  to  set  forth  the  character  of  the  heavenly 
Father,  longs  for  the  return  of  the  wanderer,  and  when 
he  does  return  freely  pardons  him.  It  thus  appears 
from  this  story,  as  elsewhere  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 


1 8  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

that  He  did  not  call  God  our  father  because  He  created 
us,  or  because  He  rules  over  us,  or  because  He  made 
a  covenant  with  Abraham,  but  simply  and  only  because 
He  loves  us. 

This  parable  individualizes  the  divine  love,  as  did  also 
the  missionary  activity  of  Jesus.  The  Gospels  know 
nothing  of  a  national  fatherhood,  of  a  God  whose  love 
is  confined  to  a  particular  people.  It  is  the  individual 
man  who  has  a  heavenly  Father,  and  this  individualized 
fatherhood  is  the  only  one  of  which  Jesus  speaks.  As 
He  had  realized  His  own  moral  and  spiritual  life  in  the 
consciousness  that  God  was  His  father,  so  He  sought 
to  give  life  to  the  world  by  a  living  revelation  of  the 
truth  that  God  loves  each  separate  soul.  This  is  a 
prime  factor  in  the  religion  and  ethics  of  Jesus.  It  is 
seldom  or  vaguely  apprehended  in  the  Old  Testament 
teaching  ;  but  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  it  is  central  and 
normative. 

It  cannot  be  fairly  objected  that,  since  these  publi- 
cans and  sinners  who  thronged  Jesus  were  Jews,  —  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  —  therefore  this  story  of 
the  Lost  Son  does  not  teach  the  essential  and  universal 
fatherhood  of  God.  The  lost  son  does  not  stand  simply 
for  a  lost  Israelite,  a  fallen  member  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,1  but  he  represents  the  sinner,  whether  Jew  or 
Gentile.     The  father  in  speaking  of  him  says  that  he 

1  See  Weiss,  Neulestamentliche  Theologie,  sechste  Ausgabe,  p.  74. 


THE  NEW   REVELATION   OF  GOD  19 

was  "  dead,"  and  therefore  he  stands  for  all  who  are 
dead,  for  certainly  a  Jew  who  is  spiritually  dead  is  in 
no  better  state  than  a  Gentile  who  is  spiritually  dead 
(Rom.  ii.  28-29).  And,  furthermore,  in  the  preceding 
parables  of  the  Lost  Sheep  and  the  Lost  Coin,  which 
are  manifestly  parallel  to  that  of  the  Lost  Son,  the  con- 
clusion of  Jesus  is  perfectly  general.  There  is  joy  in 
heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth,  it  matters  not 
whether  circumcised  or  uncircumcised. 

Surely  it  would  be  a  complete  misrepresentation  of 
the  spirit  of  Jesus  to  say  that  He  regarded  the  father- 
hood of  God  as  being  in  any  degree  conditioned  on 
nationality.  For  all  His  teaching,  in  contrast  with 
that  of  the  Jews  of  His  time,  is  wholly  inward  and 
spiritual,  and  therefore  is  of  necessity  universal  in  its 
sweep.  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  Jesus  could 
pronounce  penitence  and  meekness  and  mercifulness 
and  heart-purity  blessed,  and  yet  have  meant  all  the 
while  that  they  were  blessed  when  found  among  the 
Jews,  but  not  when  found  among  the  Gentiles.  If, 
however,  He  regarded  these  things  as  valuable  in  them- 
selves, irrespective  of  outward  circumstances,  then  He 
thought  of  the  bestowal  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
the  love  and  grace  of  God,  as  independent  of  out- 
ward circumstances.  In  other  words,  the  fatherhood 
of  God  was  not  a  term  to  designate  His  peculiar 
friendliness  to  the  Jewish  people. 


20  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

There  is  yet  another  important  fact  which  bears 
upon  Jesus'  conception  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  and 
that  is  the  attitude  of  Jesus  Himself  toward  men.  We 
find  in  the  Synoptists  as  clearly  as  in  John  the  claim 
of  Jesus  to  a  unique  knowledge  of  the  Father,  and  con- 
sequently the  claim  that  He  makes  a  unique  revela- 
tion of  the  Father  to  men  (Mt.  xi.  25-27;  Lk.  ix.  22). 
But  this  revelation  was  lived  as  well  as  spoken.  There- 
fore in  the  bearing  of  Jesus  toward  men,  we  see  His 
conception  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  expressed  in  unmis- 
takable terms.  Now,  it  is  true  that  Jesus  considered 
Himself  sent  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel, 
and  that  He  confined  His  labors  chiefly  to  them,  but 
it  is  equally  true  that  this  was  solely  a  matter  of  order. 
He  told  the  Canaanitish  woman  that  the  children 
should  be  fed  first  (Mk.  vii.  27).  This  plainly  sug- 
gested that  the  Gospel  was  for  all,  but  that  for  some 
reason  it  was  to  be  offered  first  to  the  Jews.  In  like 
manner,  early  in  the  Galilean  ministry,  Jesus  sent  the 
twelve  disciples  to  the  Jews,  and  forbade  their  enter- 
ing any  city  of  the  Samaritans  or  any  way  of  the  Gen- 
tiles (Mt.  x.  5) ;  but  at  a  later  day  He  sent  both  the 
twelve  and  the  entire  company  of  His  followers  to 
work  among  all  nations  (Acts  i.  8;  Mt.  xxviii.  19; 
1  Cor.  xv.  6).  The  Jews  as  the  first-born  son,  to  whom 
were  intrusted  the  oracles  of  God  (Rom.  iii.  2),  and 
from  whom  came  the  Messiah  and  salvation  (Rom.  ix.  5  ; 


THE  NEW   REVELATION   OF  GOD  21 

Jn.  iv.  22),  were  naturally  the  first  to  receive  the 
offer  of  this  salvation  and  the  kingdom  of  this  Mes- 
siah ;  but  then  their  superior  privilege  ceased. 

A  further  proof  that  it  was  simply  a  matter  of  order, 
when  Jesus  limited  His  personal  ministry  to  the 
Jews,  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  when  in  the  providence 
of  God  He  met  Gentiles,  and  they  besought  His  help, 
He  never  turned  them  away  without  a  blessing.  Thus 
He  healed  a  Samaritan  leper  (Lk.  xvii.  18),  He  healed 
the  servant  of  a  Gentile  centurion  (Mt.  viii.  13),  and 
the  daughter  of  a  Canaanitish  woman  (Mk.  vii.  26). 
There  is  no  indication  that  they  were  less  dear  to  Him 
than  were  the  Jews. 

Therefore,  in  the  fact  that  Jesus  welcomed  Jewish 
publicans  and  sinners,  we  must  see  His  attitude  toward 
all  publicans  and  all  sinners ;  and  in  this  attitude  of 
His  we  see,  as  in  a  clear  light,  His  conception  of  the 
fatherhood  of  God.  If  His  own  love  flowed  out  to 
every  lost  soul,  and  if  He  at  the  same  time  was  con- 
scious of  perfect  union  with  God,  then  He  must  have 
believed  that  God  also  loves  every  lost  soul,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  His  fatherhood  is  essential  and  universal. 

It  happens  that  in  most  of  the  passages  in  which 
Jesus  says  "your  Father,"  our  evangelists  represent 
Him  as  addressing  His  disciples ;  but  we  must  not 
make  hasty  inferences  from  this  fact,  divorcing  it  from 
the  manifest  teaching  of  the  life  of  Jesus.     There  is 


22  THE    REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

one  discourse  in  Matthew  which  was  addressed  to  the 
multitudes  as  well  as  to  the  disciples,  and  in  this  Jesus 
is  represented  as  saying  to  all  who  heard  Him,  "  Call 
no  man  your  father  on  earth,  for  one  is  your  Father 
who  is  in  heaven"  (Mt.  xxiii.  I,  9).  If  we  had  more 
of  the  addresses  of  Jesus  to  the  multitudes,  we  might 
have  more  instances  of  this  same  usage.  But  the  argu- 
ment from  the  life  of  Jesus  is  alone  quite  decisive 
that,  when  speaking  to  publicans  and  sinners  no  less 
than  when  speaking  to  His  own  disciples,  He  presented 
God  as  their  father. 

Now  as  this  fatherhood  of  God  is  ethical,  a  fatherhood 
of  love,  so  Jesus  teaches  that  sonship  to  God  is  ethical 
7.  Sonship,  in  like  manner.  A  man  cannot  say,  God  is 
hoocUs""  my  Father,  unless  he  is  inwardly  turned 
ethical.  toward   God.     Therefore  Jesus  teaches  that, 

while  God  is  a  father,  men  become  sons  (Mt.  v.  45, 
Greek  text).1  As  they  learn  to  love  their  enemies  and 
to  pray  for  those  who  persecute  them,  so  they  become 
sons  of  their  Father  who  is  in  heaven  (Mt.  v.  44). 
To  be  sons  of  God  they  must  share  His  spirit ;  and 
His  spirit  is  manifest  in  this,  that  He  causes  His  sun 
to  rise  on  the  evil  and  the  good,  and  sends  rain  on 
the  just  and  the  unjust.  In  other  words,  His  spirit  is 
one  of   uncalculating    love ;    and    in    this    love   consists 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  146;  Beyschlag,  Neutestamentliche 
Theologie,  i.  84. 


THE   NEW   REVELATION   OF  GOD  23 

His  perfection  (Mt.  v.  48).  Men  become  His  sons  as 
they  come  into  the  sphere  of  this  love.  Hence,  that 
which  constitutes  them  sons  is  inward,  not  outward ; 
spiritual  rather  than  physical.  But  the  fatherhood  of 
God  does  not  begin  when  this  sonship  begins.  His 
fatherhood  has  neither  beginning  nor  end.  He  does 
not  become  a  father  but  is  one,  for  the  term  "  father- 
hood "  is  only  a  human  means  of  describing  what 
God  is.  An  apostle  of  Jesus  put  the  same  thought  in 
an  abstract  form  when  he  said,  "God  is  love"  (1  Jn. 
iv.  8).  The  brotherhood  of  Jesus  illustrates  the  father- 
hood of  God  in  the  particular  under  consideration. 
Jesus  did  not  become  the  friend  of  sinners,  but  was 
such  a  friend  by  the  very  necessity  of  His  own  holy 
and  loving  will.  The  consciousness  that  God  was 
His  father  bound  Him  to  His  fellowmen  in  the  bonds 
of  a  brotherly  love  which  in  its  strength  and  intensity 
corresponded  to  His  sense  of  His  Father's  care.  The 
attitude  of  His  heart  toward  publicans  and  sinners, 
His  willingness  to  give  His  life  for  others,  was  not  a 
consequence  of  His  Messianic  call,  but  rather  conditioned 
that  call.  The  office  did  not  create  the  love,  but  the 
love  prepared  the  way  for  the  office.  Thus  in  the 
thought  of  Jesus,  according  to  the  Synoptists,  the  father- 
hood of  God  is  the  eternal  heart  of  God,  a  term  whose 
import  is  essential  and  universal. 

This  revelation  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  is  the  new 


24  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

revelation  which  Jesus  made.  He  gave  no  other ;  there 
could  be  no  higher.  Whatever  Jesus  says  of  God  apart 
8.  other  from  His  fatherhood,  while  in  harmony  with 
jtsufabom  that>  is  mainlv  incidental.1  It  is  such  teach- 
God.  jng  as   may  De  foun(i  also  m  the  prophets. 

This  is  true,  for  example,  of  the  holiness  and  righteous- 
ness of  God.  Jesus  does  not  speak  of  these  attributes 
in  particular,  but  His  entire  life-work  and  his  entire 
revelation  imply  the  loftiest  conception  of  them  which 
is  conceivable.  Thus  the  very  mission  of  Jesus  is  to 
call  sinners  to  repentance,  that  they  may  become  mem- 
bers of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  have  fellowship 
with  God  (Mk.  ii.  17);  and  the  first  petition  that  he 
taught  His  disciples  was  a  petition  for  the  hallowing  of 
God's  name  (Mt.  vi.  9).  God  is  indeed  the  infinite 
Father,  ready  to  pardon  the  greatest  sinner ;  but  He 
is  the  Holy  Father,  and  unless  sinners  are  pardoned 
and  purified,  they  can  never  see  His  face  (Mt.  v.  8). 
Again,  Jesus  has  no  explicit  teaching  on  the  power  and 
knowledge  of  God,  but  His  thought,  as  made  plain  by 
incidental  references,  is  in  line  with  that  of  the  great 
prophets.  God  marks  the  fall  of  a  sparrow  (Mt. 
x.  29),  numbers  the  hairs  of  our  heads  (Mt.  x.  30), 
and  is  acquainted  with  all  our  needs  (Mt.  vi.  8,  32). 
He  feeds  the  birds,  He  clothes  the  lilies,  He  sends  sun- 

1  Comp.   Adeney,  "The   Transcendental    in    Christ's   Consciousness," 
American  Journal  of Theology,  January,  1899,  p.  103. 


THE  NEW   REVELATION  OF  GOD  25 

shine  and  rain,  He  would  have  us  ask  Him  for  our 
daily  bread,  He  has  prepared  a  kingdom  for  His  own, 
all  right  and  good  things  are  possible  to  Him,  and  He 
is  lord  of  heaven  and  earth  (Mt.  vi.  26,  30;  v.  45; 
vi.  11  ;  xxv.  34;  Mk.  xiv.  36;  Mt.  xi.  25).  The  new 
element  in  this  teaching  is  that  the  infinite  power  and 
knowledge  of  God  serve  the  ends  of  His  fatherly  love ; 
and  hence  Jesus  rebuked  His  disciples  because  they  did 
not  trust  God  in  the  storm  on  the  lake  (Mk.  v.  40). 
Since  the  Almighty  is  their  Father  they  ought  not  to 
fear  the  wind  and  the  waves,  but  should  be  calm.  Here, 
then,  as  elsewhere  when  speaking  of  God,  it  is  His 
fatherly  love  which  dominates  the  thought  of  Jesus. 
Nothing  is  allowed  to  attract  attention  from  it,  or  to  dim 
its  brightness.  And  this  central  thought  is  expressed 
in  the  terms  and  with  the  accent  of  absolute  certainty. 
Jesus  knew  the  Father  (Mt.  xi.  27). 

The  Gospel  of  John  is  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  Gospel 
of  the  fatherhood  of  God.     For,  in  the  first  place,  the 
term  father  is  used  here  with  much  greater 
frequency  than  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  (about  fatherhood  of 

God  in  the 

ninety  times  in  all) ;    and,   secondly,   God  is  fourth 
spoken  of  in  an  absolute  sense  as  "  the  Fa- 
ther," a  usage  seldom  found  in  the  earlier  Gospels  (Mt. 
xi.  27;  Mk.  xiii.  32  ;  Mt.  xxviii.  19).     The  extent  of  this 
usage  in  John  is   not  quite   plain  ;    for  while  in  some 
passages  the  absolute  sense  is  unmistakable,  in  others 


26  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

it  may  be  questioned.  In  the  conversation  with  the 
Samaritan  woman  Jesus  plainly  uses  the  term  father  in 
the  sense  of  the  universal  Father.  "  The  hour  cometh 
and  now  is  when  the  true  worshippers  shall  worship  the 
Father  in  spirit  and  truth,  for  such  doth  the  Father 
seek  to  be  His  worshippers."  "Believe  me,  the  hour 
cometh  when  neither  in  this  mountain  nor  in  Jerusalem 
shall  ye  worship  the  Father"  (Jn.  iv.  21,  23).  And 
there  are  not  a  few  other  passages  in  this  Gospel  where 
God  seems  to  be  called  "the  Father"  in  an  absolute 
sense.  In  about  one-quarter  of  the  passages  where  God 
is  called  "  Father,"  He  is  so  called  in  reference  to  Jesus, 
and  the  language  used  is  "my  Father"  {e.g.  ii.  16;  v. 
17;  vi.  32).  In  all  the  remaining  instances  He  is  called 
"the  Father,"  never  but  once  "your  Father,"  which  is 
common  in  the  Synoptists.  Now  in  some  of  these  cases 
it  is  possible  to  hold  that  the  word  father  is  used  of  God 
in  view  of  His  relation  to  His  Son,  but  in  some  cases 
this  is  not  possible.  So,  for  example,  in  vi.  27,  where 
we  read,  "  Eternal  life  which  the  Son  of  man  shall  give 
you,  for  this  one  the  Father  sealed,  even  God."  Here 
the  two  terms  "  God  "  and  "  Father  "  seem  to  be  terms 
of  equally  wide  import.  Likewise  in  vi.  46 :  "  Not 
that  any  one  hath  seen  the  Father  excepting  Him  who 
is  from  God  :  this  one  hath  seen  the  Father."  Here 
"the  Father"  is  a  synonym  of  "God."  Equally  decisive 
is  the  passage  xx.  17:   "I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  the 


THE  NEW   REVELATION   OF   GOD  27 

Father.  But  go  to  my  brethren  and  say  to  them,  I 
ascend  to  my  Father  and  your  Father  and  my  God  and 
your  God."  It  is  quite  clear  that  the  word  "  Father  " 
in  the  first  clause  is  unlimited,  for,  in  the  later  clauses, 
He  who  is  here  called  "the  Father,"  is  called  by  Jesus 
"my  Father"  and  "your  Father."  Since  now  there 
are  some  passages  where  the  absolute  sense  of  father 
is  required,  and  since  in  the  other  passages  where  the 
words  ''the  Father"  are  used  there  is  nothing  which 
requires  us  to  limit  the  fatherhood,  it  must  be  held 
probable  that  the  author  always  employed  the  word 
father  in  an  unlimited  sense  when  he  did  not  associate 
a  personal  pronoun  with  it.  If  this  be  the  case,  it  is 
apparent  that  the  universal  fatherhood  of  God  is  made 
very  prominent  in  John.  This  emphasis  may  be  due 
largely  to  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and  not  to 
Jesus  Himself ;  but  even  in  that  case  it  surely  bears 
witness  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  taught  the  universal 
fatherhood  of  God,  and  taught  it  in  a  way  which  deeply 
impressed  the  hearts  of  men.  Otherwise  the  appear- 
ance of  this  doctrine  in  an  accepted  and  authoritative 
writing  of  the  close  of  the  first  century  would  be 
unintelligible. 

That  God  is  father  in  this  absolute  sense  is  a  fact 
which  is  found  elsewhere  in  John  than  in  the  use  of  the 
father-name.  It  is  found,  for  example,  in  the  statement 
that  God   loved  the  world  up  to  the  point  of    highest 


28  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

sacrifice  for  it,  and  in  the  promise  that  He  will  abide 
with  any  one  who  keeps  Christ's  words  (iii.  16;  xiv. 
23).  It  underlies  the  great  thought  that  Jesus  will  draw 
all  men  unto  Himself  by  revealing  unto  them  the  heart 
of  the  Father,  which  He  will  do  by  the  sacrifice  of  Him- 
self (viii.  28 ;  xii.  23,  28,  32).  It  is  found  also,  as  in 
the  earlier  Gospels,  in  the  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  men. 
He  offered  life  to  the  Samaritan  woman,  and  felt  that 
in  helping  her  He  was  accomplishing  the  Father's  will 
(iv.  10,  34);  and  the  visit  of  the  Greeks  brought  before 
His  soul  the  vision  of  a  great  harvest  for  the  kingdom 
of  God  (xii.  20-24).  This  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  a 
woman  whom  the  Jews  regarded  as  an  outcast,  and  this 
attitude  toward  the  Gentiles,  shows  plainly  that  He 
thought  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  as  universal. 

But  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  as  in  the  Synoptists,  an  ethi- 
cal fatherhood  calls  for  an  ethical  sonship.  God  is  the 
universal  Father,  loving  the  whole  world  and  each  in- 
dividual in  it ;  yet  Jesus  says  to  the  Jews  who  were  re- 
jecting Him,  "  If  God  were  your  Father,  ye  would  love 
me  "  (viii.  42).  That  is  to  say,  these  men  are  not  sons  of 
God,  though  they  are  the  objects  of  His  love;  and  until 
they  become  sons  of  God,  His  fatherhood  is  not  a  reality 
to  them.  It  is  a  reality  in  itself :  God  yearns  for  these 
men  who  are  rejecting  Jesus,  and  He  offers  them  life ; 
but  He  cannot  express  the  deep  meaning  of  His  father- 
hood to  them    except  as  they  welcome  its  expression. 


THE   NEW   REVELATION   OF  GOD  29 

Hence  it  is  only  the  disciples  of  Jesus  of  whom  it  can  be 
said  that  God  loves  them  as  He  loves  Jesus  (xvii.  23). 

The  fatherhood  of  God,  in  John  as  in  the  older  Gos- 
pels, is  a  fatherhood  in  holiness  and  righteousness  (xvii. 
n,  25),  and  a  fatherhood  which  unceasingly  expresses 
itself  in  works  of  love  and  mercy  (v.  1 7). 

Such,  in  brief  statement,  was  the  new  revelation  of 
God  which  Jesus  made.  It  was  conveyed  by  words,  and 
it  was  conveyed  by  a  life  which  overflowed  and  c  d 
will  forever  overflow  the  largest  and  deep-  sion- 
est  words  of  human  speech.  It  rose  above  the  teaching 
of  scribe  and  Pharisee  as  far  as  the  perfect  character  of 
Jesus  towered  above  theirs ;  and  it  stood  related  to  the 
purest  and  loftiest  visions  of  the  most  spiritual  prophets 
as  the  full  day  stands  related  to  the  earliest  shimmers  of 
the  dawn.  It  reveals  what  God  is  in  Himself,  and  there- 
fore what  He  is  toward  every  soul  which  He  has  made. 
It  reveals  Him  as  a  heavenly  Father,  and  pours  into 
that  word  father  a  tenderness  of  love,  a  depth  of  sym- 
pathy, and  a  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  for  man's  redemption, 
which  is  as  inexpressible  as  the  power  and  sweetness 
of  Jesus'  own  life.  It  brings  God  forever  near,  and 
makes  His  infinite  fatherliness  toward  every  human  be- 
ing as  real  as  the  cross,  or  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus. 
In  this  revelation  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  taken  in  its 
length  and  breadth  and  depth  and  height,  lies  the  great 
message  of  Jesus  to  the  world  —  the  centre  and  the 
explanation  of  all  His  teaching. 


CHAPTER   II 

The  Kingdom  of  Heaven 

We  have  only  a  meagre  outline  of  the  earliest  teach- 
ing of  Jesus.  The  evangelists  pass  over  it  with  few 
i.  The  words,  and  hasten  forward  to  the  events  and 

t  h"n  of  teachings  that  belonged  in  the  days  when 
Jesus.  j-]-^    Lord    had  become  famous,  dwelling  at 

greatest  length  on  the  momentous  close  of  His  earthly 
life. 

The  beginning  of  the  public  career  of  Jesus  was 
relatively  obscure  and  unimportant.  He  spent  some 
eight  months  in  Judea,  according  to  John  (Jn.  ii.  13; 
iv.  35),  of  which  the  first  three  Gospels  have  no  clear 
trace.  At  the  beginning  of  this  period  He  spent  a 
few  days  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  consequence  of  His 
words  and  deeds  He  was  recognized  by  a  small  num- 
ber of  the  more  spiritually  minded  people  as  a  teacher 
from  God  (Jn.  iii.  2),  while  the  religious  leaders  held 
Him  to  be  an  unlicensed  and  dangerous  reformer. 
Then  He  retired  from  Jerusalem  to  the  country  of 
Judea,  and  spent  two-thirds  of  a  year  (about  one-third 
of  His  entire  ministry)  before  His  enemies  in  Jerusalem 

30 


THE   KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN 


31 


heard  very  much  about  His  words  or  doings.  This 
period,  which  only  John  mentions,  seems  to  be  regarded 
even  by  him  as  of  comparatively  little  importance,  for 
he  touches  it  very  briefly.  According  to  his  sketch  of 
the  career  of  Jesus  during  these  months,  He  must  have 
appeared  to  the  Jews  as  another  John  the  Baptist 
(Jn.  iii.  22-iv.  3).  For,  like  John,  He  also  was  en- 
gaged in  the  work  of  baptizing,  and  each  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  band  of  disciples.  Crowds  of  people 
were  thronging  both  teachers,  and  if  we  may  trust 
the  report  of  the  jealous  disciples  of  John,  the  crowds 
who  came  to  Jesus  were  greater  than  those  who  came 
to  the  Baptist.  But  even  in  this  activity,  Jesus  retired, 
as  it  were,  behind  His  disciples,  inasmuch  as  He  did 
not  administer  baptism,  but  committed  that  function 
entirely  to  them.  After  this  obscure  period  in  Judea, 
which  seems  to  have  had  little  direct  Messianic  signifi- 
cance, came  the  beginning  of  the  more  effective  Gali- 
lean ministry.  But  of  the  earliest  part  of  this  Galilean 
work,  also,  our  knowledge  is  slight.  The  records  tell 
us  that  Jesus  began  His  preaching,  not  with  any  ab- 
stract doctrine,  but  with  the  announcement  of  a  fact, 
namely,  the  fulfilment  of  ancient  prophecies  which, 
however  they  had  been  misunderstood  by  His  hearers, 
furnished  the  great  hope  of  their  lives  (Mk.  i.  15  ; 
Mt.  iv.  17).  So  far  Jesus  seems  to  have  followed  in 
the  steps  of  the  Baptist ;  for  the  heart  of  John's  mes- 


32  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

sage,  that  which  had  thrilled  all  the  land  of  Judea  and 
the  country  around  the  Jordan  (Mk.  i.  15;  Mt.  hi.  5), 
and  which  was  the  motive  that  led  men  to  repentance, 
was  just  this  announcement  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  at  hand.  This  was  also  the  glad  tidings  in  which 
Jesus  asked  men  to  believe  :  this  was  the  burden  of  His 
first  preaching.  While,  however,  this  initial  announce- 
ment of  Jesus  was  the  same  as  that  of  His  forerunner, 
it  is  quite  certain,  as  will  appear  later,  that  He  put  into 
it  a  far  deeper  and  more  spiritual  content. 

In  this  earliest  teaching  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  there  is 

no  trace  of  personal  disclosure.     It  soon  begins  to  be 

implied  more    or    less    directly  {e.g.   Mk.  ii. 

2.   The 

kingdom  of     io,  20),  but  at  first  it  does  not  appear  at  all. 

many-sided     The  watchword  of  the  popular  preaching  of 

Jesus,  even   from   the   beginning,  was    "the 

kingdom  of  heaven  "  ; J  and  all  His  teaching,  the  later 

1  It  seems  probable  that  the  term  ordinarily  used  by  Jesus  was  "  king- 
dom of  heaven'''1  rather  than  "kingdom  of  God";  for  (i)  the  Logia  of 
Matthew,  that  is  the  bulk  of  the  words  of  Jesus  which  are  incorporated  in 
this  Gospel,  are  regarded  as  directly  apostolic,  which,  of  course,  cannot  be 
said  of  the  narratives  of  Mark  and  Luke.  (2)  The  "kingdom  of  heaven" 
is  regarded  as  original  because  it  is  more  Jewish  than  the  term  "king- 
dom of  God,"  and  the  presumption  is  that  Jesus  used  a  current  term.  The 
form  of  expression  is  Jewish,  for  the  Greek  word  for  heaven,  in  this 
phrase,  is  a  plural  in  accordance  with  the  Hebrew,  but  contrary  to  the 
Greek,  usage.  Then  the  expression  "  kingdom  of  heaven  "  has  a  Jewish 
coloring,  as  compared  with  "  kingdom  of  God,"  in  that  it  accords  bet- 
ter with  the  popular  belief  that   the  kingdom  was  to  come  from  above. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  33 

and  more  private  as  well  as  the  earlier  and  more  popu- 
lar, aimed  at  the  establishment  and  completion  of  this 
kingdom.  However,  it  is  not  easy  to  define  the  thought 
of  these  words  in  a  precise  manner,  just  as  it  is  not  easy 
to  state,  comprehensively  and  exactly,  what  Jesus  meant 
when  He  said  that  He  had  come  "to  fulfil"  the  Law 
and  the  prophets  (Mt.  v.  17).  That  fulfilment  has 
many  sides  and  involves  many  great  truths ;  so  is  it 
also  with  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  It  needs  only  a 
hasty  survey  of  the  words  of  Jesus  to  show  that  He 
did  not  use  this  term  as  one  uses  a  definite  mathe- 
matical expression.  It  is  rather  a  many-sided,  rich, 
and  poetical  symbol,  and  Jesus  at  one  time  gives  promi- 
nence to  one  aspect  of  it,  at  another  time  to  another 
aspect.  Thus  He  says  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
something  to  be  entered  at  once  by  those  to  whom  He 
is  speaking  (Mt.  vii.  13-14),  and  again,  it  is  something 
which  is  entered  by  the  righteous  after  the  Son  of  man 
shall  have  come  in  His  glory  (Mt.  xxv.  31,  34).  At  one 
time  Jesus  says  to   the  Pharisees,   "The  kingdom  of 

(3)  The  originality  of  the  term  "  kingdom  of  heaven  "  is  favored  by  the 
consideration  that  the  second  and  third  evangelists,  since  they  wrote  for 
Gentile  readers,  may  more  readily  be  thought  to  have  modified  a  Jewish 
expression,  than  that  the  author  of  the  Login,  who  wrote  for  Jews,  should 
have  modified  the  term  used  by  Jesus.  See  against  this  view  Wendt,  Die 
Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  298-300;  in  agreement  with  it,  Arthur  Titius,  Die  neutesta- 
mentliche  Lehre  von  der  Seligkeit,  p.  27;  Stanton,  The  Jewish  and  the 
Christian  Messiah,  pp.  209-210. 

D 


34  THE   REVELATION  OF  JESUS 

heaven  is  among  you  ; "  and  again,  He  teaches  that 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  the  place  where  Abraham, 
Isaac,  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets  rest  and  are  blessed 
(Lk.  xvii.  21  ;  xiii.  28).  In  one  passage  the  kingdom 
is  something  that  can  be  taken  away  from  the  Jews 
and  be  given  to  the  Gentiles  (Mt.  xxi.  43),  and  again 
it  is  that  for  whose  coming  Jesus  instructs  His  disciples 
to  pray  (Mt.  vi.  10).  At  one  time  Jesus  says  to  those 
who  are  around  Him  that  unless  their  righteousness 
shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees, they  shall  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
(Mt.  v.  20);  and  at  another  time  He  likens  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  to  a  field  of  mingled  wheat  and  tares, 
and  to  a  drag-net  filled  with  fish  both  bad  and  good 
(Mt.  xiii.  24-30,  47-50).  It  is  plain  that  the  foremost 
idea  is  not  the  same  in  all  these  passages,  but  changes 
widely  as  we  pass  from  one  to  another.  We  have  to 
ask,  therefore,  whether  the  entire  content  changes,  or 
whether  there  is  a  constant  element  in  it.  I  think  it 
will  appear  from  an  examination  of  all  the  passages 
that  there  is  a  constant  element  in  the  expression,  and 
that  this  constant  element  is  the  thought  of  the  divine 
rule  in  the  heart  of  man. 

The  passages  in  which  the  term  "  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  or  "kingdom  of  God,"  occurs,  plainly  fall 
into  several  main  groups.  In  the  first  group,  which 
is  numerous,   the  rule  of  God  seems    to   be    the  chief 


THE   KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN  35 

thought.     This  appears  to  be   the  sense  of   the  words 
when   Jesus    announced  in    Galilee    that    the    kingdom 
of  heaven   was  at  hand  (Mk.   i.  15  ;  Mt.  iv.   3.  The 
17).     The  rule  of   God  was  realized  in    His  ^ngdom  of 

'  /  heaven  as  a 

own  soul  and  His  own  life,  and  He  knew  that  divinerule- 
He  was  divinely  anointed  to  realize  it  in  the  souls 
and  lives  of  others.  And  this  rule  of  God  which  was 
at  hand  was  indeed  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment conception  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  taken 
at  its  highest  levels. :  Jesus  declared  that  He  had 
come  to  fulfil  the  Law  and  the  prophets  (Mt.  v.  17), 
to  realize  in  a  perfect  manner  that  ideal  of  life  which 
they  had  apprehended  but  imperfectly.  It  was  the 
same  truth  in  another  form  when  He  said  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand.  His  kingdom 
is  the  fulfilment  of  Law  and  prophets.  The  great  ideal 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  a  theocracy,  a  divine  rule, 
not  inward  alone,  nor  outward  alone,  but  both  inward 
and  outward,  a  complete  rule  of  God  in  human  life. 2 

To  this  first  group  belong,  further,  such  sayings  as 
the  second  petition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  "Thy  king- 
dom come  "  (Mt.  vi.  10),  and  the  exhortation  to  seek  first 
God's  kingdom  and  righteousness  (Mt.  vi.  33).  When 
Jesus  says  to  those  who  are  attracted  by  the  spirit- 
ual suggestions  of  His  parables,  "  To  you  is  given  the 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesn,  ii.  131. 

2  Comp.  Schultz,  Alttestamenlliche  Theologie,  vierte  Auflage,  pp.  124-125. 


36  THE    REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

mystery  of  the  kingdom  of  God,"  it  is  plain  that  the 
mystery  is  just  what  they  were  beginning  to  experi- 
ence in  their  souls,  and  "the  kingdom  of  heaven"  is 
the  rule  of  God  which  was  beginning  to  be  realized  as 
Jesus  came  to  have  influence  over  these  men  (Mk.  iv. 
u).  Again,  the  kingdom  which  comes  not  "with 
observation,"  of  which  Jesus  spoke  to  the  unbeliev- 
ing Pharisees,  is  a  kingdom  that  consists  in  God's 
spiritual  dominion  over  the  hearts  of  men  (Lk.  xvii. 
20).  That  was  already  among  them,  or  in  their  midst, 
yet  they  saw  not  its  presence  in  anything  material. 
It  was  among  them  as  a  spiritual  force.  Again, 
when  Jesus  speaks  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  some- 
thing difficult  to  enter  (Mt.  xix.  23),  as  something 
which  the  publicans  and  harlots  enter  before  the  self- 
righteous  Pharisees  (Mt.  xxi.  31),  and  as  that  from 
which  the  scribe  was  not  far  distant  who  asked  Jesus 
concerning  the  great  commandment  (Mk.  xii.  34),  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  the  rule  of  heaven,  the  reign 
of  God.  It  is  an  invisible  spiritual  good,  or  a  com- 
prehensive designation  of  all  spiritual  goods. i  The 
kingdom  of  heaven2  in  this  sense  of  the  term  was 
a  present  reality  to  Jesus,  and  not  something  to  be 
realized  in  a  future  more  or  less  remote.3      Jesus  knew 

1  See  Baldensperger,  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu  etc.,  p.  no. 

2  Other  passages  which  may  probably  be  reckoned  with  this  class  are 
Mk.  iv.  26-29;    30-32;    Mt.  xiii.  44-46;   xx.  1. 

z  See  J.  Weiss,  Die  Predigt  Jesu  vom  Reiche  Coties,  pp.  1S-25. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  37 

that  the  divine  rule  was  perfect  in  Him,  the  ideal 
of  Law  and  prophets  made  real.  Its  realization  was 
future  for  others,  but  present  for  Him,  and  so  an 
accomplished  fact  for  the  race  to  which  He  belonged. 
In  a  second  group  of  passages  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  denotes,  primarily,  the  company  of  those  who  are 
under  the  divine  rule.  The  prominent  4.  The 
thought  is  no  longer  the  rule  but  the  ruled.  Jhe^mpany 
Such  is  its  meaning  in   the    parable    of   the  of  thosf  w!1° 

0  r  are  under  the 

Tares  and  in  that  of  the  Drag-net  (Mt.  xiii.  divine  rule- 
24-30,  47-50).  The  tares  are  the  sons  of  the  evil  one, 
and  at  the  end  of  the  age  they  are  to  be  gathered 
out  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah.  The  sons  of  the 
evil  one  are,  therefore,  in  the  kingdom  up  to  that 
time,  as  the  tares  are  left  mixed  with  the  wheat  in 
the  field  till  the  time  of  harvest.  To  be  gathered 
out  of  the  kingdom  means  to  be  separated  from  the 
sons  of  the  kingdom.  The  interest  of  the  parable 
centres  in  the  teaching  that  these  two  classes  —  the 
sons  of  the  kingdom  and  the  sons  of  the  evil  one  — 
must  remain  intermingled  until  the  end  of  the  age. 
Therefore  the  kingdom  out  of  which  the  "stumbling- 
blocks-"  are  to  be  gathered  is  the  company  of  those 
who  inwardly  belong  to  the  Messiah.  It  is  plain 
that  "kingdom,"  in  this  connection,  cannot  mean  the 
dominion  of  God,  for  the  sons  of  the  evil  one  are 
said  to  be  in  the  kingdom. 


$8  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

In  like  manner,  when  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
likened  to  a  drag-net,  which  gathers  the  bad  fish  as 
well  as  the  good,  the  foremost  thought  of  the  word 
"  kingdom  "  is  the  persons  who  constitute  it.  To  this 
class  must  be  reckoned  also  the  two  passages  in  which 
Jesus  speaks  of  being  small  or  great  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  "  Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one 
of  these  least  commandments  and  shall  teach  men  so, 
shall  be  called  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  but 
whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  he  shall  be 
called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  (Mt.  v.  19). 
"  Among  them  that  are  born  of  women,  there  hath 
not  arisen  a  greater  than  John  the  Baptist ;  yet  he 
that  is  but  little  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  greater 
than  he"  (Mt.  xi.  11).  It  is  difficult  to  regard  the 
prominent  thought  of  the  word  "kingdom"  in  these 
passages  as  that  of  dominion  or  rule.  We  cannot 
say,  he  that  is  least  in  the  rule  of  heaven,  or  great 
in  the  rule  of  heaven,  for  rule  is  not  place  or  society. 
And,  moreover,  the  terms  "  least,"  "  great,"  and  "little  " 
are  relative,  and  require  us  to  find  their  complement 
in  the  following  expression,  "kingdom  of  heaven." 
Their  use  is  natural  if  the  leading  thought  in  the 
words  "kingdom  of  heaven"  was  the  company  of 
those  who  are  under  heaven's  rule.  "Least"  of  this 
number,  "great"  or  "little"  in  this  company,  are 
expressions  whose  meaning  is  plain.     The  same  might 


THE   KINGDOM    OF    HEAVEN 


39 


be  claimed  if  "kingdom  of  heaven"  were  taken  here 
in  the  sense  of  a  place,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  it 
was  ever  used  by  Jesus  to  denote  a  place  071  earth. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  noticed  that  while  the 
foremost  thought  in  this  second  group  of  passages 
is  a  certain  company  of  persons,  these  persons  cannot 
be  defined  without  the  aid  of  the  thought  of  the  rule 
of  God.  They  are  the  persons  whom  God  rules ;  and 
not  only  so,  they  are  the  persons  whom  He  rules 
through  Jesus  the  Messiah.  The  kingdom  of  heaven 
of  which  Jesus  speaks  is  a  kingdom  which  begins 
with  Him,  and  which  is  extended  as  loyalty  to  Him 
extends. 

There  is  a  third  group  of  passages  where  the  term 
"kingdom  of  heaven"  has  a  content  notably  different 
from  that  of  either  of  the  classes  which  have  5.  The 
been  considered.     This  new  thought  is  that  the^en™  o" 
of  the  blessings  and  privileges  which  belong  tlf  blessir>gs 

d  r  a  ^     of  the  divine 

to  those  zvho  are  ?tnder  the  divine  rule.  Thus  rule- 
those  who  are  poor  in  spirit  and  those  who  are  perse- 
cuted for  righteousness'  sake  are  promised  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  (Mt.  v.  3,  10).  It  is  plain  that  "kingdom," 
in  this  instance,  does  not  mean,  primarily,  rule,  for  they 
who  are  poor  in  spirit  are  manifestly,  by  that  very  fact, 
already  under  the  rule  of  God ;  and  that  which  they 
have  cannot  be  that  which  is  promised  to  them.  Nei- 
ther can  it  denote  the  company  of  those  who  are  under 


40  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

the  divine  rule,  as  in  the  second  group  of  passages, 
for  they  who  are  poor  in  spirit  and  they  who  are  per- 
secuted for  the  sake  of  righteousness  surely  belong  to 
the  company  who  are  ruled  by  God.  Therefore,  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  which  is  promised  to  those  who 
are  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake  and  to  the  poor 
in  spirit  may  best  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  the 
rewards  which  belong  to  that  kingdom,  the  blessings 
and  privileges  which,  either  in  the  present  age  or  in 
that  which  is  to  come,  accompany  the  rule  of  God. 

Another  passage  to  be  considered  here  is  Mt.  xxi. 
43.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  parable  of  the  La- 
borers in  the  Vineyard,  Jesus  said  to  the  Jews, 
"  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  away  from 
you,  and  shall  be  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth 
the  fruits  thereof."  But  clearly  Jesus  did  not  mean 
by  "  kingdom  of  God"  in  this  passage  the  rule  of 
God,  for  the  Jews  whom  He  was  addressing  were,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  not  under  that  rule.  They  were  the 
husbandmen  who,  in  heart,  had  already  killed  the 
householder's  son ;  they  were  hostile  to  the  rule  of 
God.  It  could  not  be  taken  from  them,  for  they  did 
not  have  it.  It  is  manifest  also  that  the  word  "  king- 
dom "  cannot  here  denote  the  company  of  those  who 
are  under  the  divine  rale ;  for  it  is  something  which 
can  be  taken  from  the  Jews  and  be  given  to  others. 
What  it  does  mean  will  appear  when  we  consider  the 


THE   KINGDOM   OF    HEAVEN  4 1 

historical  fulfilment  of  Christ's  word.  That  which  was 
actually  taken  from  the  Jews  and  given  to  the  Gen- 
tiles was  the  privilege  which  they  had  enjoyed  of 
being  God's  people  in  a  somewhat  exclusive  sense. 
They  had  possessed  the  oracles  of  God  (Rom.  iii.  2), 
the  light  of  His  revelation,  and  the  comfort  of  the 
Messianic  hope.  But  when  the  grace  of  God  was 
rejected  by  the  Jews,  it  was  fully  manifested  to  the 
Gentiles.  The  vineyard  of  special  privilege  in  which 
the  Jews  had  been  placed  was  opened  to  all  peoples 
(comp'.  Acts  i.  8;  xiii.  46,  etc.).  Thus,  in  this  third 
group  of  passages,  while  the  divine  rule  is  still  in- 
volved, the  stress  falls  on  the  blessings  and  privileges 
which  accompany  that  rule. 

There  is  a  fourth  group  of  passages  in  which  the  term 
"kingdom  of  heaven"  has  a  sense  different  from  the 
three  already  noted.  This  class  is  numerous,  6.  The  king- 
and  the  new  meaning  of  the  term  is  clear.  It  f^^abode 
is  the  place  to  be  occupied  in  the  future  age  by  of  thosf  vvhu° 

r  *  jos     are  under  the 

those  zv ho  are  under  the  divine  rule.  In  the  divine  rule- 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Jesus  says,  "  Not  every  one  that 
saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  who 
is  in  heaven  "  (Mt.  vii.  21).  It  is  plain  from  the  follow- 
ing verses  that  Jesus  is  thinking  of  the  end  of  the  pres- 
ent age,  and  therefore  the  "  kingdom  of  heaven "  is 
here  a  synonym  of  heaven  as  the  abode  of  the  blessed 


42  THE    REVELATION  OF  JESUS 

Again,  the  term  has  the  same  sense  when  Jesus  says 
that  many  -  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west, 
and  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Mt.  viii.  1 1  ;  Lk.  xiii.  29).1 
In  the  interpretation  of  the  parable  of  the  Tares,  it  is 
said  that  the  righteous,  after  the  judgment  of  the  wicked, 
shall  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their 
Father  (Mt.  xiii.  43).  Parallel  to  this  is  the  passage  in 
Mark  where  Jesus  says,  "  It  is  better  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  with  one  eye,  than  having  two  eyes 
to  be  cast  into  Gehenna"  (Mk.  ix.  47).  Since  Gehenna 
stands  here  in  contrast  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  this  expression  denotes  the  place  to  which  the 
righteous  go  at  death. 

Another  passage  belonging  to  this  group  is  Lk.  xxii. 
29-30.  "  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom  even  as  my 
Father  appointed  unto  me,  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at 
my  table  in  my  kingdom  ;  and  ye  shall  sit  on  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  This  language, 
"at  my  table  in  my  kingdom,"  is  local,  and  the  context 
shows  that  Jesus  is  looking  forward  to  the  heavenly  con- 
summation of  His  kingdom.  The  term  is  employed  in 
the  same  sense  in  the  account  of  the  Last  Supper,  when 
Jesus  says  to  His  disciples,  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I 
will  in  no  wise  drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine 

1  Lk.  xvi.  23  does  not  affirm  that  Abraham  is  in  Hades.  That  is 
where  the  rich  man  is,  but  Abraham  is  "afar  off." 


THE  KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  43 

until  that  day  when  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of 
God  "  (Mk.  xiv.  25),  "or  in  the  kingdom  of  my  Father" 
(Mt.  xxvi.  29).  Plainly  this  kingdom  lay  out  beyond  His 
death  and  theirs,  and  has  primarily  a  local  sense.1 

Such  is  the  fourth  group  of  passages  in  which  the 
"kingdom  of  heaven"  is  found.  The  prominent 
thought  is  the  future  abode  of  the  redeemed.  But  this 
group2  of  passages  is  bound  to  the  first,  as  are  the  second 
and  third,  by  the  idea  of  God's  rule.  The  kingdom  of 
heaven  as  a  place  or  abode  is  the  place  where  that  rule 
is  perfected,  where  there  are  none  who  oppose  it,  and 
where  all  its  promised  rewards  are  forever  realized. 
The  kingdom  of  heaven  in  this  sense  alone  is  eschato- 
logical ;  it  belongs  entirely  to  the  future.  The  kingdom 
of  heaven  in  the  three  preceding  groups  belongs  to  the 
present  as  well  as  to  the  future.  As  the  first  and  fourth 
of  these  groups  are  the  most  numerous,  we  infer  that 
Jesus  employed  the  words  "  kingdom  of  heaven  "  most 
frequently  to  denote  either  the  rule  of  God,  or  the  place 
to  be  occupied  in  the  future  by  those  who  are  under 
that  rule. 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  I.ehre  fesu,  ii.  545-546.  The  view  that  Jesus 
here  refers  to  a  partaking  of  the  Christian  Eucharist  on  earth  seems  impos- 
sible, for  He  would  thus  partake  of  the  symbols  of  His  own  flesh  and 
blood.     See  Plummer's  Commentary  on  Luke. 

2  Mt.  xxv.  1  might  be  added.  I  have  not  attempted  to  classify  every 
passage  which  speaks  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  to  cite  a  sufficient 
number  of  illustrations  to  justify  the  classification. 


44  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Having  shown  that  Jesus  did  not  attach  a  constant 
meaning  to  the  term  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  it  is  now 
7.  The  rule  necessary  to  consider  somewhat  more  closely 
ethical  and  what  He  meant  by  the  rule  of  God.  Did  the 
spiritual.  expression  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  in  this 
sense  of  it,  bring  before  His  mind  anything  material 
and  visible  ?  Did  He  associate  with  it  any  special  social 
and  civil  relations  ?  Was  the  conception  wholly  spirit- 
ual, or  was  it  partly  spiritual  and  partly  material  ?  Did 
His  thought  begin  and  end  with  an  inward  realization 
of  the  rule  of  God,  or  did  it  begin  with  this  and  go  on 
to  an  external  realization  ? 

It  admits  of  no  debate  that  Jesus'  conception  of  the 
rule  of  God  was  preeminently  ethical  and  spiritual.1  He 
told  the  Pharisees  that  the  kingdom  was  not  to  come 
with  observation,  so  that  men  could  see  it  and  say,  "  Lo, 
here!"  or,  "There!"  (Lk.  xvii.  20,  21.)  While  they 
had  been  speculating  in  regard  to  the  time  of  its  coming, 
it  had  come  and  was  among  them.2  And  Jesus  did  not 
say  that  it  had  simply  begun  to  come  :  He  said  it  was 
there.  Now  the  kingdom  of  God  was  present  at  that 
moment  only  in  the  sense  of  the  rule  of  God  in  the  heart 


1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  I.ehre  Jesu,  ii.  293-296;  Toy,  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  p.  340. 

2  Comp.  on  the  clause  "  among  you,"  Meyer's  Handbuch  ilber  die  Evan- 
gelien  des  Markus  und  Lukas,  sechste  Auflage,  pp.  513-514;  Haupt, 
Die  eschatologischen  Aussagen  Jesn,  pp.  12-13. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  45 

of  man.  That  rule  was  perfect  in  Jesus'  own  case,  and 
it  was  beginning  to  be  realized  in  the  hearts  of  His 
disciples. 

It  appears  further  that  His  conception  was  preemi- 
nently ethical  and  spiritual  from  the  fact  that  in  His 
spontaneous  teaching  He  never  discussed  the  relation  of 
His  Gospel  to  the  State,  nor  spoke,  of  the  consequences 
which  the  acceptance  of  His  Gospel  would  bring  to  the 
outward  relations  of  man  as  a  member  of  society.  The 
only  words  of  His  which  bear  upon  this  matter  were 
called  out  by  the  questions  of  His  enemies,  and  are 
wholly  incidental  in  His  teaching.  The  beatitudes  of 
Jesus  are  not  for  good  citizenship  and  philanthropy,  but 
they  are  for  qualities  of  heart  which  underlie  all  good 
citizenship,  and  on  which  a  permanent  and  wise  philan- 
thropy must  ever  depend.  His  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
seldom  touches  the  outward  life  directly,  and  then  it 
does  so  simply  for  the  sake  of  the  inner  life. 

But  while  it  is  unquestionable  that  Jesus'  conception 
of  the  rule  of  God  is  preeminently  ethical  and  spiritual, 
the  question  may  still  arise  whether  it  is  exclu-  8  The  divine 
sively  so.  In  the  discussion  of  this  question  ^du^hS^ 
we  must  recognize  two  great  facts.  First,  from  Wlthin- 
the  realization  of  the  divine  rule,  whether  that  rule  be 
limited  to  the  spiritual  or  not,  proceeds  exclusively  from 
within.  It  is  in  no  degree  conditioned  on  the  outward 
and  the  physical.      Reliance  upon  external  means  for 


46  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  recog- 
nized by  Jesus  in  the  wilderness  as  a  temptation  of 
Satan,  and  was  rejected  once  for  all.  Repentance  and 
faith  in  the  Gospel  were  the  primary  demands  which 
He  made  upon  all  men. 

Jesus  did  not  seek  to  realize  the  divine  rule  by  means 
of  miracles.  His  works  of  power  did  not  precede  His 
call  to  repentance,  but  followed  it.  And  furthermore, 
miracles  were  not  a  constant  part  of  His  ministry,  as 
though  He  had  a  fixed  policy  to  reach  the  heart  through 
the  body.1  He  seems  to  have  wrought  comparatively 
few  miracles  in  the  crowded  city  of  Jerusalem,  though 
the  need  of  physical  relief  was  probably  greatest  there, 
as  is  ever  true  of  large  cities.  Miracles  of  healing 
diminished  in  number  as  His  ministry  advanced,  and 
there  were  very  few  in  the  last  six  months.  Again,  Jesus 
never  sought  out  the  sick  to  heal  them,  even  in  the 
period  of  His  greatest  activity  in  their  behalf.  He 
went  hither  and  thither  to  preach  the  kingdom,  but  it 
is  never  said  that  He  went  about  in  order  to  heal. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  direct  effort  of  Jesus 
to  improve  the  physical  condition  of  men  was  wholly 
incidental  in  His  ministry.  It  was  not  carried  on  sys- 
tematically, as  though  Jesus  held  it  to  be  a  wise  method 
of  accomplishing  spiritual  results.     And  His  course  is 

1  Comp.  Jn.  v.  5,  which  tells  how  Jesus  once  entered  a  water  cure 
and  healed  one  sick  person  only,  leaving  the  multitude  in  their  infirmity. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  47 

justified  by  the  effect  of  His  miraculous  cures.  Of  the 
multitudes  whom  Jesus  healed,  according  to  the  Synop- 
tists,  there  is  no  direct  and  conclusive  evidence  that 
a  single  person  accepted  Him  as  the  Messiah  in  conse- 
quence of  the  physical  blessing  which  had  been  re- 
ceived.1 It  is  perhaps  natural  to  think  that  Mary  Mag- 
dalene and  the  other  women  who  followed  Jesus  (Lk. 
viii.  2-3  ;  xxiv.  10)  did  so  because  He  had  healed  them, 
and  Mary  Magdalene  at  least  seems  to  have  become  a 
true  disciple.  Bartimaeus,  when  healed,  followed  Jesus 
in  the  way,  doubtless  full  of  gratitude  toward  Him ;  but 
we  do  not  know  whether  he  ever  accepted  Jesus  as  his 
Saviour.  It  can  neither  be  affirmed  nor  denied  that  he 
or  any  other  person  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  be- 
cause of  a  physical  blessing  received  from  Him.  But 
even  if  there  were  individuals  who  were  drawn  to  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah  by  His  physical  cures,  such  instances 
must  have  been  rare.  Jesus  is  represented  as  healing 
multitudes,2  and  yet  He  had  but  a  handful  of  disciples. 
The  case  of  one  man  who,  when  healed,  went  out  and 
disobeyed  the  word  of  Jesus,  thus  hindering  His  work 
(Mk.  i.  45),  shows  that  a  miraculous  cure,  as  little  as 
any  physical  blessing,  necessarily  brings  spiritual  re- 
sults.3    The  Samaritan  leper,  one  of  the  ten  who  had 

1  Comp.  Jn.  ix;   xi.  45. 

2  See  The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  200. 

3  Comp.  Jn.  ii.  23-24;   xi.  46-48. 


48  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

been  healed,  returned  to  Jesus  and  glorified  God;  but 
this  statement  of  course  does  not  imply  that  he  accepted 
Jesus  as  Messiah  and  Saviour  (Lk.  xvii.  16). 

Jesus  sometimes  told  those  whom  He  had  healed 
that  their  faith  had  saved  them  (e.g.  Mt.  ix.  22),  but 
this  salvation  was  manifestly  physical.  The  faith  in 
Him  which  was  exercised  by  persons  who  desired 
healing  was  simply  faith  that  He  was  able  to  heal; 
and  the  healing  which  they  received  was  according  to 
their  faith  (Mt.  ix.  28).  It  was  physical  deliverance 
that  they  wanted,  and  only  this  that  they  were  fitted 
to  receive. 

Further,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  to  the  physical  man  was  wholly  miraculous. 
There  was  not  in  His  practice  or  His  teaching  any 
effort  or  plan  to  work  through  the  physical,  by  ordi- 
nary human  means,  for  the  accomplishment  of  spiritual 
results.  Now  if,  in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  divine  rule  could  proceed  from  without  in- 
ward, we  should  have  expected  to  find,  at  least  in  His 
teaching  for  His  disciples,  some  word  justifying  this 
order.  But  there  is  no  suggestion  of  this  sort.  More- 
over, while  He  Himself  ministered  miraculously  to  the 
physical  man,  He  evidently  did  not  intend  that  His 
disciples  should  continue  this  sort  of  ministry.  During 
His  own  public  activity  in  Galilee  He  commissioned 
them    to   work   miracles,  but  in   His   final  commission 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN 


49 


there  is  no  reference  to  miraculous  works.1  There 
were  comparatively  few  such  works  in  the  apostolic 
age ;  and  in  the  subsequent  centuries  the  Spirit  has 
not  led  the  Church  to  undertake  miracles  or  to  desire 
them.  This  fact  confirms  the  incidental  character  of 
the  element  of  miraculous  healing  in  the  life  of  Jesus. 
His  miraculous  ministry  to  the  physical  man  stood  in 
close  relation  to  His  Messianic  claim,2  and  was  not  an 
example  to  be  permanently  imitated  in  His  Church, 
after  His  Messiahship  should  have  been  forever  estab- 
lished by  His  resurrection  from  the  dead. 

Thus,  as  we  have  seen,  Jesus  thought  of  the  rule  of 
God  as  a  rule  to  be  realized  exclusively  from  within. 
If  He  thought  of  transformations  of  society  and  gov- 
ernment as  belonging  to  the  divine  rule  on  earth,  or 
if  He  ever  thought  of  the  exaltation  of  Israel  in  a 
political  sense  as  a  part  of  the  realization  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  for  His  people,  it  is  certain  that  He 
thought  of  these  things  as  the  natural  consequences  of 
an  inward  realization  of  God's  rule.  He  began  His 
work  for  the  Jewish  people  with  a  call  to  repentance 
and  faith,  and  closed  it  with  warnings  of  the  judg- 
ment which  would  overtake  them  because  they  had 
not   repented.     He   sent   forth    His  followers  to  make 

1  The  close  of  Mark's  Gospel,  xvi.  9-20,  is  rejected  by  most  critics  as 
not  from  the  hand  of  the  evangelist. 

2  See  l'he  Student's  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  204-206. 

E 


50  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

disciples  of  all  nations,  presumably  by  such  means  as 
He  had  used  in  winning  them  to  discipleship,  that  is, 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom  and  the 
revelation  of  the  love  of  God.  Jesus  did  not  institute 
any  social  or  political  reform ;  and  it  is  not  recorded 
of  His  apostles  that  they  departed  in  this  respect  from 
the  example  of  their  Master. 

In  regard  to  the  question  whether  Jesus'  conception 
of  the  rule  of  God  was  exclusively  spiritual,  the  second 
9.  Jesus  had  fact    to   be    noticed   is   this,    that,   as  far  as 

no  thought  of  i        •    r  tt  ^1  1  j. 

a  national  our  records  inform  us,  He  never  thought 
restoration.  Q£  a  na^ional  restoration.  There  is  no  proof 
that  the  divine  rule  meant  to  Him,  at  one  time,  Jewish 
independence  and  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  by  a 
redeemed  Jewish  kingdom,  and  that  later,  after  He  had 
failed  to  impress  the  people  as  a  whole,  the  divine 
rule  became  in  His  thought  wholly  spiritual. 

We  might  believe,  if  we  had  in  view  only  the  Synop- 
tic Gospels,  that  Jesus  at  the  beginning  of  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  Jwped1  to  gain  the  great  mass  of  the 
people ;  but  even  if  He  had  cherished  such  a  hope  — 
which  cannot  be  proven  —  this  would  not  imply  that 
He  then  associated  national  independence  with  the 
divine  rule.  If  He  hoped  to  gain  the  people  as  a 
whole,  He  surely  hoped  to  gain  them  by  spiritual 
motives.     He   never   appealed  to  them  by  the   motive 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  319-320. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  5 1 

of  a  national  future  in  which  they  should  have  power 
and  glory.  On  the  contrary,  He  studiously  avoided 
every  complication  with  the  popular  Messianic  hopes. 

We  cannot  argue  from  Matthew's  use  of  the  word 
church,  that  it  implies  a  change  in  the  thought  of  Jesus 
regarding  the  scope  of  His  work,  for  the  genuineness  of 
this  word  is  by  no  means  clear.1  If  Jesus,  in  the  critical 
hour  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  had  introduced  a  new  term  in 
the  place  of  "the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  it  in  all  the  records,  and  we  should  expect 
that,  from  the  days  of  Caesarea  Philippi  forward,  it  would 
have  been  used  frequently,  if  not  exclusively.  But  this 
is  not  the  case.  The  new  word  is  not  found  save  in 
Matthew,  and  even  he  uses  it  but  twice :  he  continues 
the  use  of  the  old  term  "  kingdom  of  heaven."  More- 
over, there  is  no  apparent  reason  why  the  word  church 
should  be  used  in  Mt.  xvi.  18,  for  it  plainly  has  no  other 
significance  than  the  term  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  when 
we  take  this  in  the  sense  of  the  company  of  those  who 
are  under  the  divine  rule.  And  finally,  against  the 
originality  of  the  word  church  is  the  fact  that  in  Mt.  xviii. 
17  it  means  a  local  body  of  disciples;  but,  in  the  time 
of  Jesus  and  long  after  that,  the  disciples  were  not  sepa- 
rated from  the  synagogue.  If,  then,  this  word  is  origi- 
nal, it  is  a  prediction   of   what  was  to  be   some  years 

1  See  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  612  ;    Holtzmann,  Neutestamentliche 
Theologie,  i.  210. 


52  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

hence,  and  indeed  is,  a  prediction  of  an  ecclesiastical 
sort.  This,  however,  is  not  probable,  for  Jesus  gave  His 
disciples  no  ecclesiastical  organization  or  directions 
whatsoever.  We  must  therefore  hold  that  the  word 
church  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  author  of  the  Gospel.  It 
is  altogether  natural  that  he  should  carry  back  into  the 
life  of  Jesus  this  name  which  was  subsequently  applied 
to  His  disciples,  and  especially  so  if  he  thought  it  had 
essentially  the  same  meaning  as  the  term  "  kingdom  of 
heaven." 

In  conclusion  on  this  point,  the  general  Synoptic 
picture  of  the  Messianic  activity  of  Jesus  is  unfavorable 
to  the  view  that  He  began  with  a  conception  of  the 
divine  rule  which  was  national  in  character,  and  after- 
ward advanced  to  a  purely  spiritual  conception.  For, 
according  to  the  Synoptists,  Jesus  avoided  everything 
which  could  suggest  political  claims,  or  which  could 
be  construed  as  favoring  a  national  restoration.  The 
only  act  which  was  in  line  with  an  outward  conception 
of  the  divine  rule  was  the  triumphal  entry  into  Jeru- 
salem ;  but  this  fell  at  the  close  of  the  public  life  of 
Jesus,  when  He  clearly  saw  that  the  Jewish  people 
was  hastening  to  its  judgment,  and  that  the  Gospel  was 
to  be  carried  to  the  Gentiles. 

There  is  yet  one  fact  which  should  not  be  overlooked 
when  considering  the  question  whether  Jesus  ever  an- 
ticipated a  national  restoration.     It  is  this,  that  through- 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  53 

out  His  entire  ministry  He  never  dropped  a  word  of 
contempt,  or  hatred,  or  even  disrespect,  for  the  foreign 
power  which  was  oppressing  the  Jews.  He  had  doubt- 
less toiled  with  His  own  hands  to  earn  money  with 
which  to  pay  the  Roman  taxes.  He  could  remember 
with  what  rigor  the  Roman  soldiers  had  suppressed  the 
Galilean  uprising  under  Judas,  which  had  taken  place 
when  He  was  a  boy  of  nine  years.  He  must  have  known 
also  of  the  corruption  of  the  social  and  political  life  of 
Rome.  And  yet  in  His  preaching  Jesus  betrays  no 
sympathy  with  the  political  ambitions  of  the  Zealots, 
or  with  the  less  radical  aims  of  the  Pharisees.  There 
is  never  a  suggestion  of  opposition  to  the  Roman 
government.  On  the  contrary,  Jesus  recognized  Cae- 
sar's right  to  receive  tribute,  and  denied  that  the  pay- 
ment of  this  conflicted  with  Jehovah's  claims  (Mk.  xii. 
I3~I7)-  Jesus  did  not  share  the  popular  enmity  against 
the  tax-gatherers  —  Jews  in  the  employment  of  Rome; 
but  He  had  fellowship  with  them,  and  seems  to  have 
regarded  their  calling  as  perfectly  legitimate. 

Now  this  attitude  toward  Rome,  this  absence  of  the 
slightest  trace  of  hostility  toward  it,  is  scarcely  intelligible 
if  Jesus  at  any  time  thought  of  the  rule  of  God  as  neces- 
sarily involving  a  national  Jewish  restoration.  It  ac- 
cords best  with  the  view  that  Jesus  regarded  the  divine 
rule  in  the  heart  as  incomparably  more  important  than 
any  outward  state  or  condition,  so  that  the  latter  does 


54  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

not  even  come  up  for  consideration.  Jesus  treats  the 
political  question  as  non-existent.  But  it  would  certainly 
be  wrong  to  infer  from  this  that  He  thought  of  the 
political  question  as  being  in  itself  unimportant.  Such 
an  inference  is  impossible  in  view  of  the  genuinely 
human  and  practical  sympathy  and  aim  of  Jesus.  He 
who  taught  that  God  takes  thought  for  what  a  man  eats 
and  wears  could  not  have  believed  that  He  is  indiffer- 
ent to  any  of  the  organized  relations  of  men ;  and  there- 
fore we  cannot  conceive  that  Jesus  was  indifferent 
toward  them.  He  doubtless  saw  more  clearly  than  any 
one  else  the  iniquity  of  the  existing  social  and  political 
conditions,  and  felt  deeply  the  wrong  and  the  shame  of 
it  all ;  but  nevertheless,  in  the  whole  course  of  His 
ministry,  He  did  not  voluntarily  touch  these  social  and 
political  questions  in  a  direct  manner.  He  always 
aimed  beneath  them,  at  the  fundamental  spiritual  con- 
dition. First,  the  reign  of  God  in  the  heart  of  man ; 
then,  social  and  political  health.  As  far  as  the  records 
go,  He  did  not  admit  the  possibility  of  any  other  order. 
We  conclude,  then,  that  Jesus  did  not  at  any  time 
associate  a  national  restoration  with  the  divine  rule 
which  He  sought  to  establish  in  Israel ;  and  in  regard 
to  the  larger  question  whether  the  rule  of  God  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  is  exclusively  spiritual,  we  hold  that 
an  affirmative  answer  must  be  given.  The  kingdom 
of   heaven    as  the    rule  of    God    is  wholly  ethical   and 


THE   KINGDOM   OF    HEAVEN  55 

religious.  Jesus  avoids  confusing  the  main  issue  with 
issues  that  are  incidental,  and  avoids  it  with  the  ab- 
solute consistency  of  one  whose  vision  and  purpose 
are  clear  and  unalterable. 

The  kingdom  of  God  as  the  key-word  of  the  Mes- 
sianic age,  according  to  the  Synoptists,  is  scarcely 
heard  in  the  fourth  Gospel.      It  occurs  but 

10.  The 

twice,  once  near  the  beginning  and  once  near  kingdom  of 

-  1  c    t  >  1  1  •  1  t         1        r  heaven  in  the 

the  close  01  Jesus  public  work.  In  the  first  fourth 
passage  Jesus  speaks  of  the  kingdom  of  GospeL 
God  as  that  which  a  man  cannot  see  unless  he  is 
born  from  above,  and  cannot  enter  unless  born  of 
water  and  the  Spirit  (Jn.  hi.  3,  5).  In  the  second 
passage  Jesus  says  to  Pilate,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world :  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then 
would  my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  de- 
livered to  the  Jews ;  but  now  is  my  kingdom  not 
from  hence"  (Jn.  xviii.  36).  Jesus  then  admits 
that  He  is  a  king,  and  describes  His  kingship  as 
one  of  witnessing  to  the  truth.  In  other  words,  His 
kingdom  is  the  rule  of  truth,  which  the  Synoptists 
call  the  kingdom  of  heaven  or  of  God.  These  two 
passages  in  the  fourth  Gospel  manifestly  belong  to- 
gether, and  their  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  that  of  the  first  of  the  four  groups  of  passages  in 
the  Synoptists :  it  is  the  divine  rule  independent  of 
outward  conditions. 


56  THE    REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

This  view  of  the  kingdom  of  God  which  meets  us 
in  these  isolated  passages  in  the  fourth  Gospel  is 
confirmed  by  the  use  which  this  Gospel  makes  of  the 
expression  eternal  life.  This  is  here  the  summum 
bonwm,  the  great  gift  of  heaven,  as  the  "  kingdom 
of  God  "  is  in  the  Synoptists.  Yet  the  conception  of 
eternal  life  is  not  coextensive  with  that  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.1  This  term,  in  certain  passages,  has  a 
meaning  quite  different  from  that  of  life  eternal,  as 
we  have  already  shown;  but  the  "eternal  life"  of  John 
corresponds,  in  a  measure,  to  "  kingdom  of  God  "  in  the 
sense  of  God's  rule  in  the  soul.  He  who  has  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  in  this  sense  of  the  term  has  eternal 
life.  But  eternal  life  is  plainly  a  spiritual  good,  and 
therefore  we  say  that  the  use  of  this  expression  sup- 
ports the  view  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
thought  of  the  "  kingdom  of  heaven "  as  designating, 
preeminently,  the  rule  of  God  in  the  heart  of  man. 

Jesus'  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  cannot 

be  fully  appreciated  until  there  is  put  by  its  side  that 

conception  which  was  held  by  the   Jews  of 

kingdom  of     His  day.     They  thought  of  the  kingdom  of 

heaven  in  the 

teaching  of     heaven    as    something    to   be   realized   from 

without,  and  not  from  within.    The  pious  man 

is  described  as  one  who  zuaited  for  the  kingdom  of  God 

(Mk.  xv.  43).     When   Jesus   entered  Jerusalem,  riding 

1  See  Beyschlag,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  i.  277-279. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF    HEAVEN 


57 


on  an  ass,  and  allowed  the  crowds  to  shout  hosanna, 
His  disciples  thought  that  He  was  now  at  last  to  set 
up  a  visible  Messianic  banner,  and  they  hailed  the 
coming  kingdom  of  their  father  David  (Mk.  xi.  10). 
Thus  the  kingdom  was  thought  of  as  one  that  should 
come  with  outward  pomp.  So  the  Pharisees  asked 
Jesus  when  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come  (Lk. 
xvii.  20) ;  and  it  is  plain  that  they  expected  a  coming 
which  would  strike  the  senses,  and  hence  something 
utterly  unlike  the  thought  of  Jesus,  who  declared  that 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  cometh  not  with  observation. 
The  kingdom  had  come  in  the  midst  of  them,  but 
its  appearance  was  so  different  from  what  they  had 
expected,  that  they  did  not  recognize  it. 

This  idea  of  a  kingdom  to  be  realized  from  without 
appears  in  the  words  with  which  Luke  introduces  the 
parable  of  the  Ten  Pounds.  He  says  that  Jesus  spoke 
this  parable  because  His  fellow-pilgrims  thought  that 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  about  to  appear  (Lk. 
xix.  1 1).  The  ministry  of  Jesus  was  now  near  its  close  ; 
but  they  had  not  at  all  observed  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  had  appeared  in  Him  and  His  work.  Even  the 
immediate  disciples  of  Jesus,  as  late  as  after  the  resur- 
rection, seem  to  have  thought  that  the  kingdom  was 
to  come  in  some  miraculous  manner,  at  any  rate  it 
was  not  to  come  through  them  (Acts  i.  6).  This  signifi- 
cant fact  shows  how  deeply  rooted  was  the  belief  of 


58  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

the  Jews  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  to  be  es- 
tablished from  without,  in  a  visible  manner.  And  we 
have  this  same  idea  of  the  kingdom  in  Jewish  writings 
outside  of  the  New  Testament.  Thus,  for  example, 
in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  we  read  that  the  Messiah  will 
destroy  the  ungodly  nations  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth, 
and  He  alone  will  establish  the  kingdom  (xvii.  23-51). 
Of  the  same  purport  is  the  teaching  of  the  Talmud.  De- 
liverance by  the  Messiah,  like  the  deliverance  of  Israel 
by  Moses,  is  to  come  from  without,  miraculously,  and 
not  at  all  from  within.  The  Jews  who  are  alive  at  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah  seem  to  have  no  more  to  do  with 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  than  do  the  Jews 
who  are  dead,  and  who  at  the  beginning  of  the  Messi- 
anic age  are  raised  up  to  enjoy  the  kingdom.  Thus 
the  kingdom  was  thought  of  as  something  external, 
which  was  to  be  superimposed  upon  the  Jewish 
people.1 

Again,  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  in  the  time  of  Jesus  was  thoroughly  political 
and  national.  This  statement  is  abundantly  illustrated 
in  the  Gospels.  Thus  the  third  temptation  of  Jesus, 
as  recorded  by  Matthew,  presupposes  that  people 
thought  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  political  organism. 

1  Comp.  Baldensperger,  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu  etc.,  p.  10 1; 
Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  TalmuJs,  pp.  347-354;  Hilgenfeld,  Die  jiidische 
Apokalypiik,  p.  86. 


THE   KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN 


59 


For  the  suggestion  that  Jesus  might  secure  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world  and  their  glory,  —  He,  a  Jewish 
carpenter  from  the  little  town  of  Nazareth,  —  would 
have  been  psychologically  impossible  had  not  the  popu- 
lar view  associated  world-wide  political  dominion  with 
Messiahship ;  and  it  would  not  have  been  a  temptation 
of  any  power  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  had  it  not  been 
deeply  rooted  in  the  Jewish  heart,  and  had  it  not 
seemed  to  have  strong  support  in  the  Old  Testament 
itself. 

The  fourth  evangelist  tells  us  that  after  the  miracle 
of  feeding  the  five  thousand  near  Bethsaida  Julias, 
Jesus  perceived  that  the  people  were  about  to  make 
Him  king  (Jn.  vi.  15).  This  word  is  capable  only  of 
a  political  meaning  in  this  place,  for  Jesus  admitted 
that  He  was  king  in  the  domain  of  truth ;  and  He 
would  surely  have  welcomed  the  recognition  of  this 
fact  at  any  time  (Jn.  xviii.  37).  But  the  kingship 
which  the  five  thousand  wished  to  force  upon  Him, 
He  refused  because  it  was  political. 

Again,  we  see  the  character  and  strength  of  the 
popular  view  in  the  request  of  Salome,  seconded  by 
James  and  John  (Mk.  x.  37;  Mt.  xx.  21).  She  wished 
her  sons  to  sit  at  Christ's  right  and  left  in  His  glory. 
It  is  obvious  that  she  was  thinking  of  an  earthly 
glory,  and  of  places  of  honor  in  the  sight  of  men. 
This  family  of  Salome  and  Zebedee  may  be  taken  as 


60  THE   REVELATION  OF   JESUS 

representing  the  prosperous  and  intelligent  class  of 
society ;  and,  accordingly,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  the  political  conception  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom  was  confined  to  the  ignorant  and  poor,  who 
perhaps  suffered  most  from  the  foreign  despotism. 

We  have  further  illustration  of  the  common  view  in 
the  triumphal  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem.  We  can- 
not understand  this  ovation  on  any  other  supposition 
than  this,  that  the  popular  conception  of  the  Messiah 
was  through  and  through  political.  Men  who  had 
not  cared  to  hear  the  divine  words  which  Jesus  spoke, 
and  who  were  blind  to  the  real  proofs  of  His  Messiah- 
ship,  flung  their  garments  in  the  road  when  Jesus 
mounted  the  ass  and  rode  toward  the  gate  of  the 
city. 

A  final  illustration  of  the  point  under  discussion  is 
found  in  the  question  of  the  disciples  after  the  resur- 
rection, to  which  reference  has  already  been  made 
(Acts  i.  6).  The  kingdom  which  they  thought  Jesus 
might  now  restore  to  Israel  cannot  be  understood 
otherwise  than  in  a  political  sense ;  for  their  ques- 
tion turns  the  thought  back  to  that  kingdom  which 
Israel  had  lost.  It  was  Israel  to  which  the  kingdom 
was  to  be  restored :  the  Messianic  age  was  to  be  the 
age  of  Israel's  dominion.  Jerusalem  was  to  be  the 
capital  of  the  world,  and  the  temple  its  religious 
centre.     Jewish    law  and  ritual  would   be   everywhere 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  6 1 

in  force;  and  Gentiles  would  have  small  participation 
in  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  except  as  they 
adopted  circumcision  and  became  Jews.1 

Such  were  the  main  features  of  the  popular  view  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  the  time  of  Jesus.  It  was 
to  be  a  kingdom  of  this  world,  though  supernaturally 
established,  and  it  was  to  be  a  kingdom  for  Israel. 
It  was  thus  radically  unlike  the  conception  of  Jesus. 
And  yet  this  teaching  of  the  scribes,  like  that  of 
Jesus,  rested  upon  the  Old  Testament.  But  one  view 
was  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament;  the  other 
was  its  degradation.  One  conception  centres  in  God, 
and  is  superior  to  earthly  relations ;  the  other  centres 
in  man,  and  consists  essentially  in  earthly  good. 

1  Comp.  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmuds,  p.  356;  Deane,  Pseudepi- 
grapha,  pp.  297-300. 


CHAPTER    III 

The  Life  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven 

It  was  in  accord  with  Jesus'  conception  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  as  a  divine  rule  in  the  heart  of  man  that 
i.  Entering  He  preached  repentance  as  a  fundamental  ne- 
^Re^nt-  cessity.  This  divine  rule  cannot  begin  with- 
ance.  out  a  turning  to  God,  for  it  is  not  a  rule  of 

force  but  of  love,  and  therefore  repentance  had  a  promi- 
nent place  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Thus  He  coupled 
a  call  to  repentance  with  His  earliest  announcement 
of  the  kingdom  (Mk.  i.  15),  and  on  the  first  occasion 
when  He  is  recorded  to  have  forgiven  sin,  He  de- 
clared that  the  aim  of  His  mission  was  to  call  sinners, 
or  in  the  explanatory  language  of  Luke,  to  call  sinners 
to  repentance  (Mk.  ii.  17;  Lk.  v.  32).  His  third 
beatitude  was  for  those  who  mourn,  not  over  the  loss  of 
national  independence,  for  that  subject  He  ignored  as 
of  comparatively  little  importance;  and  not  over  the 
fact  of  poverty  and  straitness  in  earthly  goods,  for 
He  taught  men  not  to  mourn  or  be  anxious  regarding 
these  things ;  and  not  over  the  loss  of  dear  friends,  for 
the   beatitudes  concern   the  living  in   their  relation  to 

62 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  6$ 

God  and  to  mankind :  the  beatitude  was  for  those 
who  mourn  over  tliemselves,  because  they  are  not 
under  the  divine  rule. 

When  Jesus  sent  out  the  twelve  in  the  early  Gali- 
lean ministry,  they  preached  that  men  should  repent, 
even  as  He  had  preached  at  the  beginning  of  His 
work,  and  as  He  doubtless  continued  to  preach  (Mk. 
i.  15  ;  vi.  12).  When  Jesus  was  about  to  leave  Gali- 
lee, He  declared  that  the  Ninevites  would  rise  up 
against  the  present  generation  in  the  judgment,  and 
would  condemn  it,  for  they  had  repented  at  Jonah's 
preaching ;  and  the  queen  of  the  south  would  con- 
demn the  present  generation,  for  even  she  had  shown 
greater  interest  in  divine  truth  than  they  (Mt.  xii.  41- 
42).  It  would  be  more  tolerable  in  the  judgment  for 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  though 
notoriously  wicked,  than  for  the  present  generation 
who  had  not  repented  at  His  preaching  (Mt.  xi.  20- 
24).  Again,  Jesus  set  forth  the  great  value  of  re- 
pentance when  He  declared  that  there  is  joy  in 
heaven  over  one  sinner  who  repents  (Lk.  xv.  7,  10), 
and  especially  when  He  told  the  story  of  a  father 
who  covered  his  son  with  kisses  when  he  returned 
with  confession  of  his  un worthiness  (Lk.  xv.  20). 
In  contrast  with  the  self-righteous  Pharisee  Jesus  set 
the  publican  whose  prayer  was,  "  God,  be  merciful  to 
me  the  sinner"  (Lk.  xviii.   13).      It  was  this  kind    of 


64  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

spirit  only  which  was  justified  before  God.  Jesus 
told  the  Jews  that  except  they  repented,  namely,  of 
their  hostility  toward  Him,  they  should  all  perish. 
And  the  severity  of  their  doom  would  be  comparable 
to  the  fate  of  the  Galileans,  whose  blood  Pilate  had 
mingled  with  their  sacrifices,  and  to  the  fate  of  those 
eighteen  persons  on  whom  the  tower  in  Siloam  fell 
(Lk.  xiii.  3-5).  Finally,  Luke's  version  of  the  clos- 
ing words  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples  represents  Him 
as  saying  that  the  preaching  of  repentance  to  all  na- 
tions was  in  accordance  with  the  Scripture  (Lk. 
xxiv.  47). 

Thus  it  appears  that  Jesus  regarded  repentance  as 
of  absolutely  fundamental  importance.  The  people 
who  thought  that  they  did  not  need  repentance  were, 
according  to  Jesus,  in  the  greatest  need  of  it.  He 
spoke  of  them,  ironically,  as  "righteous  persons,"  and 
said  that  ninety-nine  of  them  made  less  joy  in  heaven 
than  one  penitent  sinner  (Mk.  ii.  17;  Lk.  xv.  7). 
Punctilious  fulfilment  of  the  entire  ceremonial  law  did 
not  take  the  place  of  repentance  (Mt.  v.  20;  xxi.  31). 

The  primary  motive  to  repentance,  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  is  the  divine  goodness.  This  thought  is  re- 
flected in  the  brief  record  of  His  earliest  preaching, 
for  He  makes  the  nearness  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
the  ground  of  His  call  to  repentance  (Mk.  i.  15; 
Mt.    iv.    17).      The   kingdom    of    God    that   was    near 


THE    LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  65 

was  primarily  the  rule  of  God  in  the  heart ;  and  the 
establishment  of  this  rule  in  man,  with  its  infinite 
heritage  of  blessing,  is  a  signal  manifestation  of  the 
divine  love.  Again,  Jesus  encourages  men  to  mourn 
over  their  sins  with  the  assurance  that  this  is  the  way  to 
receive  comfort  from  God  (Mt.  v.  4).  He  woos  men 
to  repentance  by  telling  them  that  the  repentance  of 
one  sinner  makes  joy  in  heaven  (Lk.  xv.  7,  10),  and 
by  teaching  that  God  awaits  their  return  with  a  full 
pardon  and  with  overflowing  love  (Lk.  xv.  20). 

And  Jesus'  own  treatment  of  sinners,  no  less  than 
His  teaching,  shows  clearly  that,  in  His  thought,  the 
fatherhood  of  God  which  was  being  revealed  through 
Him  was  the  prime  motive  to  repentance.  Jesus  was 
known  as  the  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners  because 
of  His  sympathetic  regard  for  them  (Lk.  vii.  34).  He 
had  no  fan  of  judgment  in  His  hand,  as  His  forerunner 
expected  He  would  have  (Mt.  hi.  12),  and  He  did  not 
begin  at  once  to  cleanse  thoroughly  His  threshing-floor. 
He  did  not  break  the  bruised  reed,  nor  quench  the 
smoking  flax  (Mt.  xii.  20).  His  most  characteristic  ser- 
mon began  with  blessed,  blessed,  blessed.  The  cry  of 
His  heart  was,  "  Come  unto  me  and  I  will  give  you 
rest"  (Mt.  xi.  28).  His  love  sought  to  be  to  Jerusalem 
like  the  brooding  of  the  mother-bird's  wings  (Lk. 
xiii.  34). 

But  while  Jesus   made   the   divine   goodness   or  the 


66  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

fatherliness  of  God  the  primary  motive  to  repentance, 
and  in  His  own  person  brought  that  goodness  into 
tenderest  contact  with  men,  there  is  at  times  a  stern 
note  in  His  call  to  sinners.  They  who  refused  to 
repent  under  the  sunshine  of  divine  love  were  at 
length  threatened  with  summary  destruction.  And 
nothing  can  exceed  the  rigor  of  His  language  on 
these  occasions.  Thus  He  declares  that  the  worst  of 
the  heathen  cities  will  fare  better  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment than  the  lake  cities  of  Galilee  in  which  He  has 
preached  (Mt.  xi.  20-24).  His  unrepentant  country- 
men are  a  tree  to  be  cut  down,  and  a  people  who, 
since  they  have  refused  the  King's  invitation,  shall  be 
destroyed  (Lk.  xiii.  7;  Mt.  xxii.  7).  But  this  motive 
to  repentance  was  made  necessary  by  the  persistent 
sin  of  the  Jews.  It  is  not  an  element  in  the  spon- 
taneous preaching  of  Jesus,  but  a  motive  which  He 
was  forced  to  use  because  all  the  overtures  of  His 
love  were  rejected. 

The  conception  which  Jesus  had  of  the  nature  of 
repentance  may  be  seen  from  the  story  of  the  Lost 
Son.  The  son  came  to  himself,  then  arose  and  came 
to  his  father  (Lk.  xv.  17).  This  coming  to  himself 
suggests  that  his  previous  state  had  been  one  of 
stupor,  one  in  which  his  reason  had  lain,  as  it  were, 
dormant.  The  expression  employed  is  akin  to  that 
which  Luke  uses  in  describing  Peter's   awakening  out 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE  KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  6j 

of    the    trance,    or   ecstatic    state,    into   which    he   had 
fallen    while    praying    upon     the    housetop    in   Joppa 
(Acts    x.    9-10).     Peter    was    in   himself  when    he    re- 
flected on    the  significance    of    the  vision;  but  he  was 
not  in  himself  previously,  that  is,  he  had  not  reasoned 
in  a  self-conscious  manner.     So  the  lost  son  in  "  com- 
ing to  himself  "  came  to  his  throne  as  a  rational  being. 
He   reasoned    about   his    deplorable    state,    and   recog- 
nized  the  facts    as    they  were.       Hence   we   conclude 
that  Jesus  thought  of  repentance  as  based  on  a  clear 
seeing,  by  the  sinner,  of  his  own  condition.     It  is  an 
eminently  rational   act,  but  a  rational  act  that  carries 
the  whole  man.     It  is  a  coming  to   one's   better    self, 
and  also    an   acting  in  accordance  with  this  clear  and 
deep  vision  of  one's  true  state.     This  involves  a  going 
back  to  the  Father  with  confession  of  sin  (Lk.  xv.  21). 
When  the  lost  son  saw  his   condition,  then  he  said, 
"I    will    arise    and    go    to   my   father"   (Lk.   xv.    18). 
Jesus     everywhere    assumes    that     a    man    can    thus 
reason    in   his   heart,  and  can  go   to  his    Father.     We 
must    suppose    that    He   was    sincere    when    He    pre- 
sented  to    men    motives   which    should    lead    them    to 
repentance.     He  pronounces  a  blessing  on  those  who 
mourn  over  their  sins,  just  as   upon   those  who    make 
peace.      The   one  act  is  thought  of  as  lying  within  a 
man's  power  no  less  truly  than  the  other.     Jesus  influ- 
ences the  will  of  man  powerfully  by  His  revelation  of 


68  THE   REVELATION    OF  JESUS 

the  love  of  God,  or  rather  He  presents  a  powerful  mo- 
tive to  the  will;  but  the  will  has  full  power  to  yield  or 
not  yield  to  the  motive.  He  tells  His  disciples,  when 
asked  to  explain  His  parables,  that  the  mystery  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  given  to  them  (Mk.  iv. 
11-12);  but  He  infers  that  it  is  given  to  them  from 
the  fact  that  they  seek  it.  He  did  not  separate  one 
and  another  out  of  the  multitude  to  whom  He  spoke 
the  parables.  On  the  contrary,  He  spoke  the  para- 
bles, and  one  and  another  separated  himself  from 
the  crowd,  and  waited  for  an  explanation  of  the 
word.  They  sought  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  of 
God ;  and  because  God  was  their  father,  Jesus  knew 
that  He  had  granted  what  they  sought.  There  is  no 
suggestion  of  a  decree  of  God,  as  that  word  has 
often  been  used  in  theology.  It  is  the  Father's  good 
pleasure  to  reveal  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  to 
babes,  and  to  hide  it  from  the  wise  and  understand- 
ing (Lk.  x.  21;  Mt.  xi.  25);  but  to  be  "wise"  and 
"understanding,"  or  to  be  a  "babe"  is  never  treated 
by  Jesus  as  something  that  lies  outside  a  man's  own 
will  and  choice.  When  Jesus  said,  relative  to  the 
salvation  of  a  rich  man,  that  all  tilings  are  possible 
with  God,  He  certainly  did  not  intimate  that  God 
can  at  pleasure  produce  repentance  (Mt.  xix.  26). 
He  had  sought  to  win  a  rich  young  man,  and  had 
failed.     He  then    told    His   disciples   that  it  was  very 


THE    LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  69 

difficult  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  God. 
In  stating  this  truth  He  used  a  figure  which,  taken 
literally,  declares  the  absolute  impossibility  of  saving 
a  rich  man,  for  it  is  wholly  impossible  for  a  camel 
to  go  through  a  needle's  eye.  The  disciples  were 
exceedingly  amazed,  thinking  that  if  it  was  so  diffi- 
cult to  save  a  rich  man,  then  no  one  could  be  saved. 
To  this  Jesus  made  reply  that  what  is  impossible 
with  men  is  possible  with  God,  for  all  things  are 
possible  with  Him.  He  is  simply  emphasizing,  with 
these  words,  the  greatness  of  God's  power ;  but  the 
statement  cannot  be  taken  literally  any  more  than 
that  other  in  which  Jesus  tells  the  Pharisees  that 
they  strain  out  gnats  and  swallow  camels.  It  means 
that  God's  power  —  here  to  accomplish  moral  results 
—  is  inconceivably  greater  than  man's.  But  there  is 
no  suggestion  that  this  power  is  exerted  in  any  pe- 
culiar manner  in  particular  cases.  Everywhere  God 
is  father,  and  everywhere  men  are  urged  to  become 
children  of  the  Father.  The  fact  of  fatherhood  goes 
before  and  gently  constrains  men  to  repentance;  but 
the  act  of  turning  is  nevertheless  their  very  own. 
Mary  chose  the  good  part  (Lk.  x.  42),  and  of  the 
people  of  Jerusalem  Jesus  said,  "  I  would  .  .  .  but 
ye  would  not "  (Lk.  xiii.  34). 

There  is  yet  one  point  to  be  noted,  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  in  connection  with  repentance :  that  is,  it  secures 


JO  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

immediate  and  full  pardon.  The  conception  which 
Jesus  had  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  differs  from  that 
of  the  prophets  and  psalmists  only  as  His  conception 
of  God  differed  from  theirs.  The  distinctive  char- 
acteristic of  this  conception,  which  is  the  essential 
fatherhood  of  God,  determines  His  teaching  of  for- 
giveness. The  fatherhood  of  God  involves  an  abound- 
ing willingness  to  pardon  every  one  who  seeks  pardon. 
This  is  the  peculiarity  of  Jesus'  doctrine  of  forgiveness 
—  the  joyous  readiness  of  God  to  grant  full  pardon, 
and  to  grant  it  simply  for  the  asking.  This  truth  has 
its  classic  expression  in  the  picture  of  the  father's 
reception  of  the  returning  son  (Lk.  xv.  11-32).  He 
is  waiting  for  him,  he  runs  to  meet  him,  he  kisses  him 
fervently.  The  son  has  nothing  to  offer  but  a  con- 
fession of  sin ;  but  this  is  enough  for  the  father,  or 
rather  the  fact  that  he  has  his  son  again  is  enough. 
He  was  lost ;  he  was  dead  as  far  as  his  relation  to  his 
father  was  concerned.  Now  he  has  come  back,  and  it 
is  the  restoration  of  this  personal  relationship  which 
makes  gladness  in  the  home.  We  may  infer  from  the 
father's  language  that  the  son  could  not  possibly  have 
brought  with  him  anything  which  would  have  been 
worthy  of  the  slightest  consideration  in  comparison  with 
the  return  of  his  child.  It  is  the  son,  the  son  though  in 
abject  poverty,  that  occasions  the  father's  joy. 

So    Jesus  thought  of   God  in  relation  to  a   penitent 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  71 

sinner.  Other  words  and  facts  of  the  Gospel  confirm 
the  lesson  of  this  story.  Thus  Jesus  tells  His  disciples 
to  forgive  a  penitent  brother  until  seventy  times  seven 
(Mt.  xviii.  22).  What,  then,  in  His  thought,  must  be 
the  divine  willingness  to  pardon  !  And  this  willingness 
of  God  is  further  seen  in  Jesus  Himself,  for  He  prom- 
ises rest  to  all  who  simply  come  to  Him  (Mt.  xi.  28),  and 
shows  not  the  slightest  hesitation  in  opening  Paradise 
to  a  dying  robber  who  casts  himself  in  penitence  upon 
His  loving  pity  (Lk.  xxiii.  40-43).  This  abundant 
willingness  of  God  to  pardon  is  not  lessened  by  that 
obscure  word  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  an  everlasting  sin 
(Mk.  iii.  28-30;  Mt.  xii.  31-32  ;  Lk.  xii.  10).  Jesus  does 
not  intimate  that  the  scribes,  to  whom  He  was  speak- 
ing, might  dye  themselves  so  deeply  in  sin  as  to  make 
God  unwilling  to  forgive  them.  He  says  that  they  are 
in  danger  of  committing  the  sin  of  blasphemy  against 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  this  sin  hath  not  forgiveness ; 
but  the  nature  of  this  sin,  as  far  as  it  can  be  inferred 
from  the  context,  suggests,  as  the  reason  why  it  is  not 
forgiven,  a  lack  of  penitence  on  man's  part  rather  than 
lack  of  willingness  in  God  to  pardon.  For  it  is  implied 
that*  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit,  unlike  blasphemy 
against  the  Son  of  man,  has  no  excuse  of  ignorance. 
It  is  blasphemy  against  what  is  recognized  by  the  soul 
as  th3  very  light  and  truth  of  God.  It  is  ascribing  to 
Satan  what  one  knows  to  be  divine.     Now  it  is  easier 


72  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

to  believe  that  a  soul  which  has  fallen  to  such  a  depth 
of  depravity  is  unable  to  turn  in  penitence  to  God  than 
that  God  is  unwilling  to  forgive  so  heinous  a  sin. 
Therefore,  this  saying  cannot  be  allowed  to  limit  God's 
willingness  to  pardon. 

We  have  seen  that  Jesus  thought  of  the  kingdom  of 

heaven  as   being,  primarily,  the    reign  of    God  in  the 

heart.      He   announced   that  kingdom  as  at 

b.  Receiving 

the  kingdom    hand>    and    later   declared    to    the    Pharisees 

of  heaven. 

that  it  was  among  them,  because  He  was 
conscious  that  it  was  completely  realized  in  Himself. 
Therefore  His  conception  of  receiving  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  of  necessity  dominated  by  the  personal 
idea.  Believing  the  Gospel,  or  receiving  the  kingdom 
of  God,  which  is  an  equivalent  expression,  meant  hear- 
ing His  word  and  doing  it  (Mt.  vii.  24).  This  thought 
is  deeply  impressed  upon  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  though 
Jesus  did  not,  according  to  these  writings,  make  a 
verbal  and  public  claim  to  Messiahship  till  near  the 
close  of  His  ministry.  Thus,  for  example,  He  said  that 
one  who  was  but  little  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was 
greater  than  John  the  Baptist  (Mt.  xi.  11),  because  one 
who  was  but  little  there,  nevertheless,  received.  Him 
as  the  bringer  of  that  kingdom,  while  the  Baptist 
was  questioning  in  that  hour  whether  Jesus  was  really 
the  "coming  one."  Again,  confessing  Christ  or  being 
ashamed  of    Him  and  His  words  are    the  facts  which 


THE    LIFE   OF   THE   KINGDOM   OF    HEAVEN  73 

determine  the  future  of  each  spirit  (Mk.  viii.  38;  Lk. 
xii.  8-9).  The  greatest  calamity  that  can  befall  a  man 
is  to  cause  one  who  believes  in  Christ  to  stumble 
(Mk.  ix.  42).  Of  the  significance  of  this  personal 
claim  we  shall  speak  in  another  connection,  but  it  is 
mentioned  here  as  helping  to  illustrate  Jesus'  concep- 
tion of  receiving  the  kingdom  of  God  or  believing  in 
the  Gospel. 

We  have  said  that,  in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  to 
receive  the  kingdom  of  heaven  means  to  hear  and 
do  His  word.  He  lays  stress  on  this  practical  aspect 
of  the  subject  (Mt.  vii.  21,  24).  He  alone  believes 
the  word  of  Jesus  who  actually  does  it.  To  say 
"  Lord,  Lord " ;  to  prophesy  in  His  name ;  to  eat 
and  drink  in  His  presence ;  even  to  cast  out  demons 
and  do  mighty  works  in  His  name,  —  these  things 
are  not  believing  in  Him  (Mt.  vii.  21-23;  Lk.  xiii.  26- 
27).  To  do  these  things  is  not  necessarily  to  do  His 
word.  That  word  is  spiritual,  and  seeks  control  of 
the  entire  inner  life.  Men  may  prophesy  and  do 
mighty  works  in  His  name,  and  yet  be  workers  of 
iniquity.  This  view  of  faith,  which  regards  it  practi- 
cally as  the  doing  of  Christ's  word,  gives  prominence 
to  the  will  of  man.  For  the  word  of  Jesus,  which 
calls  men  to  the  acceptance  of  the  divine  rule  and 
the  doing  of  the  divine  will,  is  a  word  that  calls  for 
radical   self-surrender,  and   this  is  ever  a  supreme  act 


74  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

of  the  will.  It  carries  the  whole  man,  intellect  and 
heart,  but  it  gives  prominence  to  the  will.  It  is 
plain  that  this  view  of  faith  which  Jesus  had  is 
entirely  practical  and  intelligible. 

There  are  two  points  in  regard  to  the  reception 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  which  Jesus  emphasizes. 
First,  it  must  be  received  in  humility.  The  first  beati- 
tude of  Jesus  is  for  the  poor  in  spirit  (Mt.  v.  3), 
those  who  do  not  with  the  Pharisee  recount  their 
virtues  before  the  Lord,  but  who  stand  afar  off  from 
the  altar,  who  do  not  lift  up  so  much  as  their  eyes 
to  heaven,  and  who  smite  the  breast,  saying,  "  God, 
be  merciful  to  me  the  sinner"  (Lk.  xviii.  9-14).  The 
first  instance  of  faith  so  great  that  it  surprised  Jesus 
was  faith  which  was  accompanied  by  equally  remarka- 
ble humility.  "  I  am  not  worthy,"  said  the  centurion, 
"  that  thou  shouldest  come  under  my  roof  "  (Mt.  viii.  8, 
10).  Jesus  recognized  with  thanksgiving  that  it  was 
the  good  pleasure  of  God  to  reveal  the  things  of  the 
Gospel  to  "babes"  and*  to  hide  them  from  the  "wise" 
and  "understanding"  (Mt.  xi.  25).  The  "babes" 
were  His  disciples,  men  who  did  not  take  offence 
at  His  lowly  appearance,  as  did  the  people  of  Nazareth 
(Mk.  vi.  3),  and  who  did  not  think  themselves  wiser 
than  He. 

The  same  condition  of  receiving  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  contained  in  His  words  to  the   disciples  when 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  75 

they  wished  to  turn  away  the  children  who  had  been 
brought  for  the  Master's  blessing.  "  Whosoever  shall 
not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child  shall 
in  no  wise  enter  therein  "  (Mk.  x.  15).  With  this  say- 
ing we  may  associate  the  words  and  deed  with  which 
He  rebuked  the  disciples'  desire  to  be  first.  He  em- 
braced a  little  child,  and  said  that  to  receive  a  little 
child  in  His  name  was  to  receive  Him,  and  so  to  re- 
ceive the  Father  (Mk.  ix.  36-37;  Lk.  ix.  48);  and 
unless  they  turned  from  their  selfish  striving  and 
became  as  little  children,  they  should  not  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  (Mt.  xviii.  3).  To  receive  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child  is  just  to  receive  it 
as  a  gift,  simply  and  joyously,  with  no  vain  thought 
of  deserving  it ; 2  and  it  is  that  spirit  which  Jesus  sym- 
bolically commended  when  He  embraced  a  little  child. 
Once  and  again  the  Lord  set  forth  this  same  truth  in 
the  proverbial  saying,  that  he  who  exalts  himself  shall 
be  humbled,  and  he  who  humbles  himself  shall  be 
exalted  (Lk.  xviii.  14;  Mt.  xxiii.  12).  It  is  seen 
also  in  the  story  of  the  Lost  Son,  for  he  purposes 
to  ask  his  father  to  receive  him  as  one  of  his  hired 
servants  {Lk.  xv.  19).  This  insistence  that  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  must  be  received  in  humility  is  in 
keeping   with   Jesus'    conception    of    man's   ill   desert. 

1  Comp.   Bousset,   Jesu  Predigt  in  ihrem    Gegensatz  zum  Judenthtim, 
P-  45- 


76  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

The  lost  son,  lost  and  dead  to  his  father,  is  His  type 
of  every  sinner.  When  He  speaks  to  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  of  the  ninety  and  nine  righteous  persons 
who  need  no  repentance,  that  is  irony  ;  for  in  regard 
to  these  same  scribes  and  Pharisees  to  whom  He 
thus  refers,  He  elsewhere  said  that  the  publicans  and 
harlots  would  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  sooner  than 
they  (Mt.  xxi.  31);  and  He  also  told  His  disciples 
that  unless  their  righteousness  should  exceed  the 
righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  they 
should  by  no  means  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
(Mt.  v.   20). 

The  man  whose  spirit  Jesus  holds  up  as  a  model 
is  the  man  who  said,  "God,  be  merciful  to  me  the 
sinner."  Jesus  regarded  this  as  the  only  right  spirit, 
because  that  which  He  came  to  seek  was  lost  (Lk. 
xix.  10).  He  refers  to  all  who  do  not  heed  His  word 
as  dead,  that  is,  dead  toward  God,  morally  and  re- 
ligiously dead  (Lk.  ix.  60).  But  when  Jesus  says 
that  He  came  to  seek  that  which  was  lost,  we  cannot 
infer  that  He  thought  of  all  men  as  being  equally  bad 
and  equally  far  from  His  kingdom.  In  His  own  ex- 
perience, which  we  may  probably  see  reflected  in  the 
parable  of  the  Sower,  He  had  found  hard  soil,  rocky 
soil,  impure  soil,  and  also  good  soil  of  different  degrees 
of  fertility  (Mk.  iv.  1-20).  When  He  sent  out  the 
twelve  and  the  seventy,  He  anticipated  that  they  would 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE  KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  JJ 

find  a  son  of  peace  in  one  house  and  not  in  another 
(Lk.  x.  6).  These  sons  of  peace  need  His  message : 
so  much  is  taken  for  granted ;  but  they  are  inwardly 
inclined  toward  Him  and  His  kingdom.  Some  of 
them  are  near  (Mk.  xii.  34);  some,  it  may  be,  at  the 
very  door.  There  is  a  vast  gulf  between  them  and 
such  other  persons  as  persecute  His  messengers 
and  persecute  Him.  The  kingdom  was  equally 
near  to  all,  but  all  were  not  equally  near  to  the 
kingdom. 

A  second  condition  of  receiving  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  that  a  man  must  receive  it  as  the  one  tiring 
needful,  as  the  hid  treasure  and  the  pearl  of  great  price 
for  which  he  may  rationally  sell  all  that  he  has  (Mt. 
xiii.  44-46 ;  Lk.  x.  38-42).  Jesus  knew  by  experi- 
ence that  the  rule  of  God  in  the  heart  was  the  supreme 
good,  and  He  taught  that  it  must  be  received  as  such. 
A  man  must  think  of  it  rightly  in  order  to  receive  it 
truly.  Jesus  called  upon  men  to  make  sacrifices  and 
endure  struggles  commensurate  with  the  value  of  the 
kingdom  which  they  sought.  They  must  seek  that 
kingdom  in  preference  to  food  and  raiment  and  the 
other  things  of  the  earthly  life  (Mt.  vi.  25-34).  They 
must  henceforth  find  the  centre  of  their  desire  in  that 
kingdom  and  not  in  themselves.  They  must  deny 
themselves.  They  must  bear  their  cross  daily  after 
Him;  that  is,  they  must  be  ready  to  be    crucified    for 


yS  THE  REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

His  sake  (Lk.  ix.  23).1  The  criminal  customarily 
bore  his  cross  to  the  place  of  execution  (Jn.  xix.  17). 
Hence  the  demand  of  Jesus  was  that  His  disciples 
should  be  willing  to  make  the  last  sacrifice  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Whatsoever  was  held  as  a  good 
must  be  held  in  subordination  to  that  kingdom. 
Father,  mother,  wife  and  children,  brothers  and  sisters, 
yea,  and  life  itself,  must  be  hated  in  comparison  with 
one's  love  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Lk.  xiv.  26). 
One  must  renounce  all  that  one  has  in  order  to  be  a 
disciple  unto  the  kingdom  of  God ;  for  that  kingdom 
is  the  rule  of  God,  and  the  rule  of  God  excludes  all 
other  rule  in  and  over  the  soul  of  man  (Lk.  xiv.  33). 
The  demand  that  was  made  on  the  rich  young  ruler, 
to  sell  all  that  he  had,  was  made  in  principle  in  the 
case  of  every  one  who  was  called  to  the  kingdom 
(Mk.  x.  21). 

It  is  here,  in  connection  with  entrance  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  that  Jesus'  references  to  wealth 
chiefly  belong.  Wealth  is  not  discussed  for  its  own 
sake.  That  is  quite  plain  in  the  case  of  the  young 
ruler  who  failed  to  respond  to  the  summons  of  Jesus 
to  give  away  his  property  and  follow  Him  (Mk.  x. 
17-31).  His  refusal  led  Jesus  to  remark  on  the  diffi- 
culty of  a  rich  man's  entering  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  but  the  story  contains  no  word  or  suggestion 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  379,  foot-note. 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN 


79 


on  the  possession  of  riches  by  those  who  are  already 
in  that  kingdom.  Jesus  loved  the  young  man,  and 
spoke  of  only  one  thing  which  he  lacked,  and  that, 
as  the  sequel  shows,  was  an  undue  attachment  to  his 
wealth.  Had  his  attachment  to  Jesus  been  para- 
mount, there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  would 
have  been  asked  to  sell  his  goods.  No  such  demand 
was  made  on  James  and  John,  who  belonged  to  a 
family  of  means  (Mk.  i.  20),  or  on  Joanna,  Mary 
Magdalene,  and  Susanna,  who,  with  Salome  and  other 
women,  contributed  to  the  support  of  Jesus  and  His 
disciples  (Mk.  xv.  40-41  ;  Lk.  viii.  2-3).  Zacchagus 
was  probably  a  wealthy  man ;  but,  unlike  the  young 
ruler,  he  was  ready  to  accept  Jesus,  and  accordingly 
he  brought  his  wealth  with  him  as  he  came  into  the 
circle  of  disciples,  and  began  at  once  to  use  it  in  the 
service  of  the  kingdom  (Lk.  xix.  8-9).  His  wealth 
may  or  may  not  have  been  the  "mammon  of  unright- 
eousness" (Lk.  xvi.  1-13);  but  in  any  case,  after  he 
met  Jesus,  it  was  his  servant  and  not  his  master.  But 
although  ZacchGeus  brought  his  riches  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  Jesus  taught  that  it  was  difficult 
for  a  man  in  his  condition  to  enter  the  kingdom  — 
not  indeed  because  of  any  antagonism  between  the 
principles  of  the  kingdom  and  wealth,  but  simply 
because,  as  a  rule,  the  man  who  has  wealth  is  not 
likely  to    feel    such    a  need    of   the    kingdom    that   he 


SO  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

is  willing  to  put  it  before  his  wealth.  That  was  the 
case  with  the  young  ruler;  his  wealth  absorbed  his 
affection  and  made  him  insensible  to  the  claims  of 
the  heavenly  kingdom.  And  it  is  just  this  fatal  fas- 
cination of  wealth  that  is  in  the  foreground  of  the 
two  parables  which  Jesus  spoke  concerning  rich  men. 
In  one  case,  there  came  with  the  increase  of  riches 
only  the  thought  of  more  selfish  pleasure  and  ease 
(Lk.  xii.  16-21);  and  in  the  other  case  is  illustrated 
the  power  of  riches  to  make  one  insensible  to  the 
claims  of  human  suffering  (Lk.  xvi.  1 9—3 1 ).  But 
both  parables  were  addressed  to  men  of  the  world, 
not  to  the  disciples  of  Jesus ;  and  they  were  addressed 
to  men  of  the  world  who  were  lovers  of  money  and 
inclined  toward  covetousness  (Lk.  xvi.  14;  xii.  13-15). 
When  Jesus  told  His  disciples  not  to  lay  up  treasures 
on  earth  (Mt.  vi.  19-21;  Lk.  xii.  33),  but  to  lay  up 
treasures  in  heaven,  and  when,  according  to  Luke, 
He  spoke  a  beatitude  for  the  poor  and  hungry,  and 
pronounced  a  woe  on  those  who  are  rich  and  full 
(Lk.  vi.  20-21,  24-25),  He  sought  to  turn  their 
thought  to  the  chief  thing  and  to  magnify  the  riches 
of  His  kingdom.1  The  statement  is  relative,  as  when 
He  says  that  one  cannot  be  His  disciple  except  one 
hates  father  and  mother  (Lk.  xiv.  26).  This  sig- 
nifies   that    the   supreme    thought    should    be    on    the 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  I.chre  Jesn,  ii.  1 67-168. 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  8  I 

treasures  in  heaven,  not  on  earthly  treasures ;  the 
supreme  love  must  be  for  Jesus,  not  for  father  and 
mother.  But  as  Jesus  did  not  teach  His  disciples  to 
hate  father  and  mother,  so  neither  did  He  teach 
them  that  it  is  wrong  in  itself  to  lay  up  treasures 
on  earth.  Riches  are  dangerous  for  men  of  the 
world  and  deceitful  for  those  who  have  the  seed 
of  the  Gospel  mixed  with  thorn-seed  in  their  hearts 
(Mk.  iv.  18-19);  but  Jesus  has  no  specific  teaching 
in  regard  to  the  possession  of  wealth  by  those  who 
are  truly  members  of  His  kingdom.  Therefore  we 
repeat  that  the  references  of  Jesus  to  wealth,  except 
those  which  use  it  simply  as  an  illustration,  are  in 
connection  with  the  thought  of  entering  His  king- 
dom. Hence  we  can  no  more  appeal  to  the  teaching 
or  life  of  Jesus  in  support  of  any  theory  of  wealth 
or  its  proper  use  than  we  can  appeal  to  Him  for 
specific  instructions  regarding  any  phase  of  the  out- 
ward life.  He  does  not  give  such  instructions ;  He 
is  not  a  legislator.  He  aims  to  make  men  sons  of 
God  and  brothers  to  their  fellow-men,  and  assumes 
that  when  they  have  this  right  fundamental  attitude, 
when  He  has  inspired  them  with  His  spirit,  they  can 
be  trusted  to  solve  the  problems  of  their  outward  life. 
We  have  noticed  some  of  the  passages  which  teach 
that,  in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  one  cannot  truly  receive  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  unless  one  receives  it  as  the  highest 

G 


82  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

good,  the  one  thing  needful.  It  is  another  expression 
of  this  thought  when  Jesus  speaks  of  the  way  of  the 
kingdom  as  narrow  (Mt.  vii.  13-14),  and  calls  on  His 
hearers  to  make  strenuous  efforts  to  enter  (Lk.  xiii. 
24).  Here  belongs  also  the  word  with  which  Jesus 
checked  an  ardent  candidate  for  discipleship  when  He 
told  him  that  the  Son  of  man,  less  favored  than  the 
foxes  and  the  birds,  had  not  where  to  lay  His  head 
(Mt.  viii.  20).  One  who  would  follow  Him  must  have 
the  resolution  to  face  privation  and  suffering. 

The  fourth  Gospel  differs  somewhat  from  the  Synop- 
tists,  at  least  formally,  on  the  subject  of  entering  into  life. 
c  The  Fewer  aspects  of  it  are  touched,  some  new 

conception  of  ones  appear,  and  one  aspect  on  which  the 
entering  life.    syn0ptists    do    not   dwell  is    here  magnified 

1.   Believing         J  _ 

in  Jesus.  both  in  the  words  of  Jesus  and  in  those  of 
the  evangelist.  Repentance,  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
that  complete  devotion  to  the  kingdom  of  God  which 
is  emphasized  in  the  Synoptists  do  not  directly  appear 
in  John,  while  believing  in  Jesus  is  here  an  almost  con- 
stant theme.  Entering  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  an  expression  which  occurs  but  once  :  the  King  of 
the  kingdom  engrosses  the  evangelist's  attention.  The 
attitude  toward  this  King,  which  secures  life,  is  the 
attitude  of  belief,  or,  since  the  noun  is  not  used  in  John, 
we  will  say  the  attitude  of  believing.  This  word  is 
frequently  used  in  an  absolute  sense,  no  object  being 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN  83 

expressed.  Thus  "  he  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life  " 
(Jn.  vi.  47),  and  "  blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen 
and  yet  have  believed"  (Jn.  xx.  29).  But  it  is  plain 
what  the  evangelist  thinks  of  as  the  object  of  the  verb 
in  these  passages.  "  To  believe  "  means  always  to  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah.  This  follows  both  from 
the  multitude  of  passages  in  which  the  expressed  object 
of  belief  is  Christ,  and  from  those  in  which  believing 
and  believing  in  Christ  occur  in  close  proximity,  as 
interchangeable  terms  (Jn.  hi.  15-16;  v.  43-44;  ix. 
35,  38,  etc.).  It  follows  also  from  the  fact  that  no 
other  object  of  believing  is  anywhere  expressed  which 
could  be  supplied  in  the  passages  where  the  verb  is 
employed  independently.  For  though  in  a  single  case 
the  passing  out  of  death  into  life  is  made  to  depend 
upon  believing  in  God,  it  does  not  depend  upon  this 
alone,  apart  from  Christ.  For  Jesus  says,  "  He  that 
heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  on  Him  that  sent  me, 
hath  eternal  life,  and  cometh  not  into  judgment,  but 
hath  passed  out  of  death  into  life  "  (Jn.  v.  24).  Thus 
it  is  plain  that  belief  in  God,  in  this  passage,  is  belief 
in  Him  as  the  one  who  sent  Jesus.  That  is  something 
quite  different  from  an  abstract  belief  in  the  Divine 
Being  irrespective  of  Jesus.  In  another  passage  Jesus 
declares  that  he  who  believes  in  Him  believes  not 
in  Him,  but  in  the  one  who  sent  Him  (Jn.  xii.  44); 
that  is  to  say,  he  who  believes  in  Jesus  thereby  believes 


84  THE    REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

in  God:  to  accept  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  shows  a  true 
faith  in  God  (Jn.  v.  23). 

So  when  the  fourth  Gospel  speaks  of  believing, 
without  expressing  an  object,  the  author  always  thinks 
of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  This  independent  use  of 
the  term  believe,  as  though  in  the  sphere  of  religion  there 
were  only  one  thing  to  be  believed,  is  a  striking  illustra- 
tion of  the  great  importance  which  the  fourth  Gospel 
attaches  to  belief  in  Jesus. 

The  content  of  the  word  believe  is  learned  from  the 
terms  which  are  employed  in  parallelism  with  it.  Thus, 
in  the  first  place,  Jesus  uses  the  word  receive  as  equal 
to  believe.  "  I  am  come  in  my  Father's  name,  and  ye 
receive  me  not.  .  .  .  How  can  ye  believe"  etc.  (Jn. 
v.  43-44).  Hence  to  receive  Him  in  His  claims,  to 
take  Him  as  Messiah  and  Saviour,  is  a  practical  defini- 
tion of  believing  in  Him.  Again  Jesus  uses  the  ex- 
pression coming  to  Him  as  synonymous  with  believing 
on  Him  (Jn.  vi.  35).  He  tells  the  Jews  that  they  will 
not  come  to  Him  that  they  may  have  life  (Jn.  v.  40), 
and  that  all  which  the  Father  gives  Him  shall  come 
to  Him  (Jn.  vi.  37).  It  is  plain  that  coming  to  Him  is 
a  concrete  expression  for  believing  on  Him,  for  Jesus 
says  :  "If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and 
drink.     He  that  believeth  on  me,"  etc.  (Jn.  vii.  37-38). 

The  next  figurative  description  of  believing  in  Jesus 
suggests,  more  forcibly  than  the  last,  its  deep  spiritual 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  85 

significance.  It  is  •  the  figure  of  a  birth  from  above, 
used  only  in  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus  (Jn.  iii. 
3,  7).  This  birth,  like  believing  in  Jesus,  is  said  to  be 
necessary  to  entrance  into  the  kingdom.  Now  if  it  is 
thus  necessary,  and  yet  is  mentioned  but  once  in  all 
the  records,  it  is  antecedently  probable  that  it  means 
essentially  the  same  thing  as  believing  in  Jesus,  for  this 
is  the  only  other  act  which  is  said  to  be  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  a  necessary  con- 
dition of  salvation  would  be  mentioned  only  a  single 
time.  Analysis  of  the  passage  fully  establishes  this 
view.  The  birth  from  above  is  later  described  as  a 
birth  out  of  ivater  and  the  Spirit  (Jn.  iii.  5),  or  simply 
as  a  birth  out  of  the  Spirit  (Jn.  iii.  6,  8).  Now  a  birth 
out  of  water  could  at  that  time  have  referred  only  to 
water-baptism  like  that  of  John,  for  neither  Jesus  nor 
His  disciples  had  yet  baptized.1  And  such  a  reference 
is  quite  adequate  to  the  needs  of  the  context.  For  a 
baptism  with  water  symbolized  the  putting  away  of  sin, 
and  the  statement  of  Jesus,  that  a  man  must  be  born 
of  water  in  order  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
does  not  carry  our  thought  beyond  such  a  voluntary 
act  of    putting   away   sin.     But   this    putting    away   of 

1  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  402,  foot-note,  holds  that  the  reference  to 
water-baptism  was  not  originally  in  the  narrative,  but  was  added  by  the 
author  of  the  Gospel,  and  with  direct  reference  to  Christian  baptism.  I  see 
no  sufficient  ground  for  rejecting  the  words  "  born  of  water,"  and  hold  that, 
if  original,  it  would  be  an  anachronism  to  refer  them  to  Christian  baptism. 


86  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

sin,  or,  as  Paul  would  say,  a  dying  unto  sin,  is  surely 
involved  in  believing  on  Jesus,  for  one  cannot  accept 
Him  without  renouncing  sin.  Furthermore,  since  the 
birth  out  of  water  refers  to  the  cleansing  from  sin  by 
way  of  water-baptism,  the  birth  from  the  Spirit  is 
doubtless  to  be  identified  with  what  the  Baptist  foretold 
as  Baptism  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was  to  be 
accomplished  by  the  Messiah  (Mk.  i.  8;  Mt.  iii.  u; 
Lk.  iii.  16).  But  this  Messianic  baptism  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  also  implied  in  believing  on  Jesus. 
For  as  the  birth  out  of  water  refers  to  the  putting 
away  of  sin,  so  the  birth  out  of  the  Spirit  refers 
to  a  consecration  of  the  life  to  God.  One  born  of 
the  Spirit  is  spiritual  (Jn.  iii.  6).  But  consecra- 
tion to  God  is  plainly  involved  in  believing  on  Jesus ; 
it  is  the  great  positive  element  therein.  For  to  be- 
lieve Him  is  to  receive  Him,  and  to  make  His  will 
our  law,  which  is  another  way  of  describing  complete 
consecration  to  Him.  Therefore  it  seems  plain  that 
the  birth  from  above  involves  nothing  essential  that 
is  not  contained  in  the  conception  of  believing  in  Jesus. 
The  man  who  believes  in  Jesus  is,  by  virtue  of  that 
fact,  born  from  above.  There  is  a  new  life  in  him. 
That  belief  itself  is  a  veritable  birth  from  above,  for 
it  involves  a  turning  from  sin  and  self,  and  a  consecra- 
tion to  the  will  of  Jesus.  This  figure  of  birth  may, 
however,  be  regarded  as  emphasizing  the  divine  coop- 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  87 

eration  in  the  act  of  believing  in  Jesus,  since  the  figure 
involves  the  necessity  of  the  Spirit's  aid.  At  this 
point  the  thought  of  the  expression  is  analogous  to 
that  drawing  of  the  Father  which  is  said  to  be  neces- 
sary to  faith  in  Jesus  (Jn.  vi.  44). 

There  is  yet  another  figure  which  conveys  the 
thought  of  believing  in  Jesus,  namely,  that  of  eating 
Him,  or  eating  His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood  (Jn. 
vi.  51-58).  Jesus  had  told  His  hearers  that  the  work 
of  God  was  that  they  should  believe  on  Him  whom  God 
had  sent  (Jn.  vi.  29);  and  then  He  explained  this 
one  essential  work  and  brought  out  its  inward  signifi- 
cance by  the  figure  of  eating  and  drinking  Himself. 
They  are  to  eat  the  bread  which  came  out  of  heaven, 
and  He  is  that  bread.  And  then  putting  His  thought 
in  a  more  vivid  and  forcible  way,  He  says  that  they 
are  to  eat  His  flesh  and  drink  His  blood,  or  they  are 
to  eat  Him  (Jn.  vi.  57).1  This  figure  of  eating  and 
drinking  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  shows  clearly  the 
comprehensive  and  vital  meaning  which  the  fourth 
Gospel  attaches  to  believing  in  Jesus.  It  is  spiritual 
appropriation  of  Him  as  the  Messiah  sent  from  God. 
Therefore  it  involves  conviction  of  the  understanding,  al- 

1  We  have  essentially  the  same  thought  in  the  Synoptic  account  of  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  (Mk.  xiv.  22-24)  '■>  but  the  introduction  of 
this  teaching  into  the  address  in  Capernaum,  six  months  before  the  last 
Passover,  is  perhaps  due  to  the  author  of  the  Gospel. 


88  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

legiance  of  the  will,  and  devotion  of  the  heart.  He  who 
thus  believes  has  indeed  passed  out  of  death  into  life  ; 
he  is  born  from  above,  or  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit. 
The  Gospel  of  John  has  much  to  say  of  the  impor- 
tance of  knowledge,  both  in  connection  with  the  entrance 
2.  The  place  mto  hfe  and  with  the  development  of  life  in 
ofln°fVledr  the    heart.     Thus,    to    know   the    Father   as 

in  the  fourth  ' 

Gospel.  the  on]y  true  qocj  and  t0  know  Jesus  Christ 

whom  He  sent,  is  eternal  life  (Jn.  xvii.  3  ;  comp.  xii. 
50).  The  disciples  are  characterized  as  those  who 
know  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  (Jn.  xvii.  8,  25),  and  the 
world  persecutes  the  disciples  because  it  does  not 
know  the  Father  nor  Jesus  (Jn.  xvi.  3).  Accord- 
ingly one  is  thought  of  as  passing  out  of  the  world 
into  the  discipleship  of  Jesus,  out  of  death  into  life, 
by  means  of  a  certain  knowledge  of  God  and  of  Christ. 
This  conception  is  correlative  to  that  other  one,  promi- 
nent in  the  fourth  Gospel,  that  the  mission  of  Christ 
to  the  world  was  to  make  the  Father  known  (Jn.  v. 
19-20;  xiv.  7,  10;  xv.  15;  xvii.  3).  If  He  came  to 
make  the  Father  known,  then  to  accept  the  knowl- 
edge which  He  brought  is  to  accept  His  mission  and 
become  His  disciples. 

This  knowledge  of  which  the  fourth  Gospel  speaks 
is  not  simply  intellectual :  it  is  eminently  moral  and 
religious.  This  appears,  in  the  first  place,  in  the  fact 
that  its  attainment  is  morally  conditioned.      It  is  only 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  89 

to  the  man  who  has  a  will  to  do  the  teaching,  that  the 
teaching  is  made  known  (Jn.  vii.  17).  Again,  Jesus 
said  to  the  hostile  Jews,  "  Ye  both  know  me  and  know 
whence  I  am"  (Jn.  vii.  28),  and  again,  "Ye  know 
neither  me  nor  my  Father"  (Jn.  viii.  19),  that  is  to 
say,  they  knew  Jesus  as  a  carpenter  from  Nazareth, 
but  did  not  know  Him  as  the  Messiah.  The  entrance 
of  any  spiritual  knowledge  was  made  impossible  by 
their  hostility.  The  name  of  the  Father  could  be  made 
known  only  to  the  men  whom  the  Father  had  given  to 
Jesus,  the  men  who  had  been  won  by  His  love  and 
light  (Jn.  xvii.  6).  In  like  manner,  when  Jesus  says 
that  he  who  is  of  God  heareth  the  words  of  God  (Jn. 
viii.  47),  and  he  that  doeth  the  truth  cometh  to  the  light 
(Jn.  hi.  21),  it  is  plain  that  the  knowledge  which  He 
gives  is  spiritually  conditioned. 

Further,  the  moral  and  religious  character  of  the 
knowledge  of  which  the  fourth  Gospel  speaks  appears 
in  the  fact  that  its  object  is  the  Messiah,  or  God  as 
revealed  in  the  Messiah  (Jn.  xvi.  3 ;  xvii.  3),  and 
that  it  sets  a  man  free  from  sin  (Jn.  viii.  32,  34). 
It  is  a  knowledge  that  sanctifies  (Jn.  xvii.  17),  and, 
therefore,  Jesus  anticipates  that  as  He  continues  to 
reveal  the  Father  to  His  disciples,  the  love  of  God  wil] 
abide  in  them  more  and  more  richly  (Jn.  xvii.  26). 
Plainly,  then,  this  knowledge,  which  conditions  en- 
trance into  life,  is  not  thought  of  as  a  mere  intellectual 


QO  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

acquisition,  but  as  a  moral  and  religious  perception, 
a  spiritual  knowledge  which  involves  the  entire  man, 
will  and  heart  no  less  than  understanding.  Hence, 
this  conception  of  knowledge  is  closely  related  to  the 
Johannean  conception  of  believing.  Both  are  compre- 
hensive spiritual  acts ;  but  one  gives  a  certain  promi- 
nence to  the  understanding,  while  the  other  gives  a 
similar  prominence  to  the  will ;  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  former  the  Gospel  appears  as  a  revelation,  from 
that  of  the  latter  it  appears  rather  as  an  invitation  and 
a  claim  to  allegiance.1 

The  Johannean  conception  of  entering  into  life  has 
one  further  peculiarity,  which  is  found  in  the  expres- 
sions drawn  by  the  Father  and  given  by  the 
3.  Drawn  or 

given  by  the  Father.  "  No  man  can  come  to  me,"  said 
Jesus,  "  except  the  Father  which  sent  me 
drazv  him."  "This  is  the  will  of  the  Father,  that  of 
all  which  He  hath  given  me  I  should  lose  nothing " 
(Jn.  vi.  39,  44,  65).  Four  times  in  the  prayer  of  the 
seventeenth  chapter  of  John  Jesus  refers  to  His 
disciples  as  those  who  had  been  given  to  Him  by 
the  Father  (vs.  2,  6,  9,  24),  and  employs  the  same 
language  on  one  other  occasion  (Jn.  x.  29).  The 
drawing   by    the    Father    which  is  referred   to   in    Jn. 

1  The  Synoptic  narrative  preserves  one  saying  of  Jesus  which  makes 
salvation  depend  upon  the  knowledge  of  God  which  Jesus  alone  gives, 
Mk.  xi.  27 j   Lk.  ix.  22. 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE    KINGDOM    OF    HEAVEN 


91 


vi.  44  is  evidently  a  drawing  which  is  accomplished 
through  God's  word  (Jn.  vi.  45).  It  is  an  effectual 
spiritual  influence  of  His  word  upon  the  heart  It  is 
not  simply  an  influence,  for  the  word  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament had  influence  of  some  sort  on  all  the  Jews 
whom  Jesus  addressed,  but  few  of  them  were  drawn 
to  Him  thereby.  Those  who  heard  from  the  Father 
and  also  learned,  these  were  drawn  (Jn.  vi.  45),  and 
by  virtue  of  that  very  fact  they  were  also  given  to 
Jesus. 

The  thought  of  this  language  is  not  that  of  a  decree, 
for  this  does  not  accord  with  the  figure  of  drawing,  nor 
is  it  consonant  with  Jn.  vi.  37,  which  represents  the 
giving  as  something  which  takes  place  in  the  present, 
and  from  time  to  time.  The  expression  refers  rather 
to  the  working  of  God's  Spirit  upon  the  hearts  of  men, 
which  they  either  welcome  or  resist.  The  Jews  who 
were  hostile  toward  Jesus  had  indeed  heard  from  the 
Father  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  they  had  not  really 
welcomed  His  influence,  and,  therefore,  had  not  been 
drawn  by  Him.  They  who  do  the  truth  (Jn.  iii.  21), 
whether  it  comes  to  them  through  the  Old  Testament 
or  along  other  channels  are,  as  appears  from  that  very 
fact,  drawn  of  God.  The  divine  drazving  is  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  they  are  moving  toward  God,  and 
this  is  only  another  way  of  saying  that  they  do  the 
truth.     God  is  not  simply  trying  to  draw  them,  which 


92  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

is  true  of  His  relation  to  all  men  (Jn.  iii.  16),  but 
they  are  actually  drawn  of  Him.  Now  the  position 
of  Jesus  is  that  they  who  are  moving  toward  God  will 
surely  accept  Him  as  the  Messiah,  because  He  mani- 
fests God.  If  they  have  welcomed  the  light  of  God 
which  has  reached  them  through  Nature  or  the  Old 
Testament,  they  will  welcome  Jesus  because  He  brings 
that  light,  and  brings  it  in  a  hitherto  unknown  fulness. 
They  are  sure  to  welcome  Him  when  they  know  Him. 
"Every  one  who  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice" 
(Jn.  xviii.  37). 

We  pass  now  from  the  thought  of  Jesus  on  the  sub- 
ject of  entering  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  the 
11.  Jesus'  great  word  which  dominates  the  life  of  that 
righteous"  °  kingdom,  the  word  righteousness.  It  is  plain, 
^The  from  a  survey  °f  tne  Synoptic  Gospels,  that 

comprehen-     t^e    term    righteousness    does    not    stand  for 

siveness  of 

the  term.  any  particular  aspect  of  character  and  life,  but 
rather  for  a  general  condition.  The  righteous  are  not 
those  who  touch  the  divine  law  at  a  single  point,  or  on 
a  single  side  of  their  nature,  but  those  who  conform  to 
that  law  at  all  points  and  on  every  side  of  their  nature. 
Thus,  the  word  is  used  to  designate  the  redeemed 
(Mt.  xiii.  43  ;  xxv.  37),  where  it  manifestly  describes 
an  acceptable  condition  of  the  entire  man.  When 
Jesus  tells  His  hearers  that  unless  their  righteousness 
exceeds  that  of  the  scribes  and   Pharisees  they   shall 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  93 

in  no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  He 
does  not  refer  to  any  particular  virtue,  but  to  the  en- 
tire moral  and  religious  life  (Mt.  v.  20).  His  disciples 
must  apprehend  and  fulfil  the  divine  will  more  per- 
fectly than  had  the  scribes  and  Pharisees. 

Again,  the  term  is  used  comprehensively  when  Jesus 
tells  His  disciples  to  beware  of  making  a  parade  of 
their  righteousness  before  men,  as  the  Pharisees  did 
(Mt.  vi.  1).  What  they  paraded  was  their  entire  re- 
ligious life,1  its  supposed  perfection  at  every  point. 
They  believed  perfection  to  consist  in  the  observance 
of  all  the  traditional  law,  and  that  observance  they 
claimed  to  fulfil.  When  Jesus  exhorts  His  followers 
to  seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteousness, 
He  holds  up  before  them  the  ideal  of  true  life  in  its 
length  and  breadth  and  depth  and  height  (Mt.  vi.  33). 

This  comprehensive  use  of  the  word  righteousness 
was  not  new  with  Jesus.  We  meet  it  also  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Righteousness  is  there  sometimes  used 
as  the  compendium  of  all  the  qualities  which  belong 
to  complete  manhood  in  the  sight  of  God.  Thus  in 
the  parable  of  Balaam  we  read,  — 

"  Let  me  die  the  death  of  the  righteous. 
And  let  my  last  end  be  like  his"  (Num.  xxiii.  10). 

1  The  word  righteousness,  in  the  Talmudic  sense  of  alms,  is  later 
than  the  New  Testament.  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmuds, 
P-    273. 


94  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Again,  the  righteous  man  is  set  in  contrast  with  the 
ungodly  (Ps.  i.  6)  and  with  the  wicked  (Is.  iii.  io-ii), 
and  thus  the  word  is  plainly  used  in  a  general  sense. 
But  the  distinctive  element  in  Jesus'  conception  of 
righteousness  is  spirituality.  This  element,  also,  is  not 
b  The  wholly  new,  for  the  Old  Testament  prophets 

spirituality  of  ancj  pSaimists   often  exalt  the  inward  above 

righteous-  x 

ness.  the  outward ;    but  the  teaching  of   Jesus   is 

marked  off  from  that  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the 
greater  prominence  which  it  gives  to  the  spirituality  of 
righteousness.  This  is  manifest,  first,  in  the  frequency 
of  Christ's  references  to  the  subject.  He  preached  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  as  the  divine  rule  in  the  heart  of 
man  in  contrast  to  an  outward  and  political  kingdom. 
The  beatitudes  of  His  teaching  were  nearly  all  for 
states  of  the  heart.  He  summarized  Law  and  prophets 
in  the  one  word  love  (Mk.  xii.  28-34).  His  ideal  char- 
acters were  those  which  are  ideal  to  the  Father  who 
sees  in  secret  (Mt.  vi.  1,  4,  6,  18). 

But  still  more  does  the  polemic  of  Jesus  against  the 
merely  external  righteousness  of  scribes  and  Pharisees 
serve  to  bring  out  into  strong  light  His  own  conception. 
Their  righteousness  is  not  sufficient  even  to  secure  ad- 
mission to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  much  less  to  make 
one  great  in  it,  as  they  fancied  (Mt.  v.  20).  The  sin- 
ful woman  whose  penitent  love  covered  the  feet  of 
Jesus  with  tears  and  kisses  was  exalted  above  Simon, 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  95 

the  host,  who  could  doubtless  have  said  regarding  the 
commandments,  as  did  the  young  ruler,  "All  these 
things  have  I  observed  from  my  youth  up  (Lk.  vii. 
36-50;  Mk.  x.  20).  Publicans  and  harlots  who  had 
the  beginning  of  an  inward  religion  were  destined, 
according  to  Jesus,  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
before  the  Pharisees,  who  had  a  religion  that  was 
outwardly  perfect  but  nothing  more  (Mt.  xxi.  31). 
One  penitent  sinner  causes  more  joy  in  heaven  than 
ninety  and  nine  righteous  persons  who  need  no  re- 
pentance (Lk.  xv.  7).  The  publican  in  the  parable 
who  brought  to  God  nothing  but  his  sinfulness  was 
accepted,  while  the  Pharisee  who  fasted  twice  a  week 
and  gave  tithes  of  all  that  he  had  acquired,  in  both 
particulars  going  far  beyond  the  actual  requirements 
of  the  Law,  was  not  justified  (Lk.  xviii.  14).  The 
most  vehement  denunciations  uttered  by  Jesus  were 
denunciations  of  hypocrisy  in  religion.  Because  of 
this  hypocrisy,  scribes  and  Pharisees  were  whited 
sepulchres,  serpents,  offspring  of  vipers,  and  very 
sons  of  Gehenna  (Mt.  xxiii.  15,  27,  33).  Yet  these 
men  were  so  devoted  to  their  religion  that  they  com- 
passed sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte  to  Juda- 
ism (Mt.  xxiii.  15);  they  were  so  scrupulous  that  they 
tithed  mint  and  anise  and  cummin  (Mt.  xxiii.  23); 
they  built  the  sepulchres  of  the  prophets  (Mt.  xxiii. 
29);  they  made  long  prayers  (Mk.  xii.  40);  and  they 


g6  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

fasted  often  with  sad  and  disfigured  faces  (Mt.  vi. 
16;  Lk.  xviii.  12).  Thus  the  externalization  of  their 
religion  made  them  worse  than  the  heathen,  in  the 
estimation  of  Jesus. 

Again,  the  new  emphasis  placed  by  Jesus  upon  the 
inward  character  of  righteousness  is  seen  in  His  pene- 
tration to  the  hidden  purpose  of  the  heart,  and  making 
this  the  sole  test.  Thus,  anger  exposes  to  judgment  no 
less  than  the  act  of  murder  (Mt.  v.  21-22).  Adultery 
may  be  committed  by  a  look  (Mt.  v.  28).  The  good 
deeds  which  the  Father  sees  are  those  which  are  done 
in  secret  (Mt.  vi.  3-4),  and  the  prayers  which  He  hears 
are  those  of  the  inner  chamber  (Mt.  vi.  6).  The  fast 
that  is  acceptable  to  Him  is  that  which  men  do  not  see 
(Mt.  vi.  17).  The  kingdom  of  heaven  does  not  come 
with  observation  ;  it  comes  invisibly,  for  it  is  itself  invisi- 
ble. At  the  last  day  those  who,  without  heart,  have 
prophesied  in  the  name  of  Jesus  and  in  His  name  have 
done  mighty  deeds,  will  be  rejected ;  while  those  who 
have  shown  the  loving  spirit  of  Jesus,  without  thought  of 
reward  and  in  the  most  unnoticed  ways,  are  summoned 
to  inherit  the  everlasting  kingdom  (Mt.  xxv.  31-46). 

Thus  in  His  conception  of  righteousness  Jesus  did 
not  set  up  a  new  ideal,  but  gave  a  new  and  perfect 
enforcement  and  illustration  of  an  old  ideal.  This 
enforcement,  however,  as  compared  with  the  concep- 
tions of  scribes  and  Pharisees,  amounted  to  a  complete 


THE    LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  97 

revolution.  His  thought  was  to  theirs  as  spirit  is  to 
form,  and  as  a  living  simple  faith  to  a  complex  but 
dead  religiosity. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  characteristic  element  in 
Jesus'   teaching  of   righteousness  was  its  emphasis  on 
spirituality.    This  leads  to  the  question  of  His  c  The 
attitude  toward  the  statutory  legislation  of  the  ^shsteo0fuTs;sus 
Old  Testament,  which  in  its  interpretation  by   and  the  Law. 

1.  The  Law 

the  scribes  made  up  the  greater  part  of  the  re-  m  the  life  of 
ligious  life  of  His  day.     Early  in  the  Galilean  Jesi 
ministry  it  was  observed  that  the  disciples  of  Jesus  did 
not  keep  the  ordinary  fasts,  and  this  fact  appeared  like 
a  questionable  new  departure  not  only"  to  the  Pharisees 
but    also    to  the    disciples    of   John   the    Baptist  (Mk. 
ii.  18).     The  Son  of  man  had  come  eating  and  drinking, 
and  His  disciples  naturally  imitated  His  example  (Mt. 
xi.  19).     But  the  Pharisees  fasted  twice  in  the  week,  and 
apparently  John's  disciples  did  the  same.      Hence  the 
question  which  they  brought  to  Jesus.      The  reply  of 
Jesus  involved  two  points.     First,  fasting  is  an  expres- 
sion of  sorrow  of  heart ;  and  since  the  present  is  a  time 
of  joy  for  His  disciples,  fasting  would  be  as  much  out 
of  place  as  weeping  at  a  wedding  feast.     Secondly,  the 
reason  why  He  does  not  protest  against  the  practice  of 
the  Pharisees  and  the  disciples  of  John  is  the  fact  that 
their  practice  is  in  logical  accord  with  their  principles. 
It  would  be  destructive  to  urge  upon  them  the  liberties 


98  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

of  His  disciples  while  they  have  not  His  disciples'  joy. 
It  would  be  like  putting  a  piece  of  unfulled  cloth  upon 
an  old  garment,  or  new  wine  into  old  skins.  But  Jesus 
intimated  that  a  time  was  approaching  when  it  would 
be  appropriate  for  His  disciples  to  fast.  That  time  of 
sorrow  which  is  here  darkly  hinted  at  began  when  Jesus 
was  crucified  and  continued  until  the  morning  of  the 
resurrection.  After  that  the  "  bridegroom  "  was  again 
with  the  "  children  of  the  bridechamber,"  and  the  occa- 
sion for  fasting  was  gone.  Thus  Jesus  did  not  strictly 
abolish  all  fasting  for  His  disciples,  but  He  taught  that 
so  long  as  they  had  Him  with  them,  they  did  right 
in  disregarding  this  institution.  Yet  the  principle  here 
involved  was  not  hostile  to  the  Old  Testament  Law, 
which  enjoined  a  single  day  of  fasting  as  an  expression 
of  sorrow  of  heart  (Lev.  xvi.  29);  but  it  virtually  ful- 
filled that  Law  by  its  removal,  through  the  fellowship 
of  Jesus,  of  the  inward  ground  of  fasting. 

The  bitterest  opposition  of  the  scribes  toward  Jesus 
was  occasioned  by  what  they  regarded  as  a  violation 
of  the  Sabbath.  Their  legislation  regarding  this  day 
was  their  masterpiece  of  so-called  interpretation  of  the 
Mosaic  law.  This  legislation  Jesus  entirely  ignored. 
He  allowed  His  disciples  to  pluck  heads  of  grain  on  the 
Sabbath,  and  rub  it  in  their  hands  in  order  that  they 
might  eat  it  (Mk.  ii.  23).  When  His  conduct  was 
challenged,  He  justified  it  by  an  appeal  to  the  Scrip- 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  99 

tures.  The  example  of  David,  which  the  Old  Testa- 
ment silently  approves,  was  cited  as  an  apology  for 
the  act  of  His  disciples.  If  David's  hunger  was  a 
sufficient  excuse  for  his  taking  the  shew-bread,  which 
only  the  priests  might  eat,  then  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
were  justified,  for  they  also  ate  to  satisfy  hunger. 
Moreover,  if  this  were  not  true,  if  they  were  not  justified 
in  their  act,  then  they  would  be  in  bondage  to  the  Sab- 
bath as  the  scribes  were ;  and  thus  the  purpose  of  God 
in  the  institution  of  the  day  would  be  defeated,  for  His 
purpose  was  that  the  day  should  serve  man,  not  man 
the  day  (Mk.  ii.  27). 

Again,  Jesus  was  accused  of  violating  the  law  of 
the  Sabbath  because  He  healed  the  sick  on  that 
day.  Three  instances  are  recorded,  in  two  of  which 
the  healing  was  in  a  synagogue,  and  in  one  in  the 
house  of  a  Pharisee  (Mk.  ii.  23-28 ;  iii.  1-6 ;  Lk. 
xiii.  10-17;  xiv.  1-6).  In  the  first  case  He  healed  a 
withered  hand,  and  justified  His  act  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  right  to  do  good  on  the  Sabbath.  Here  the 
appeal  is  directly  to  their  moral  sense.  In  the  second 
case  He  healed  a  deformed  woman,  and  justified  the 
act  by  the  practice  of  His  critics.  They  did  not 
hesitate  to  rescue  an  ox  or  an  ass  that  had  fallen  into 
a  pit :  much  less  should  He  hesitate  to  rescue  this 
daughter  of  Abraham  from  the  bondage  of  Satan. 
This   same    line    of    argument  was    used   in   the    third 


I0O  THE   REVELATION  OF   JESUS 

case    of    Sabbath    healing.     Thus   Jesus    justified    His 
conduct  on  the  Sabbath  both  by  Scripture  and  reason. 

Another  notable  accusation  against  Jesus  was  that 
He  neglected  ceremonial  cleansing.  His  disciples  did 
not  wash  their  hands  before  eating,  that  is,  did  not 
regularly  perform  this  ablution  as  a  religious  duty 
(Mk.  vii.  1-23).  Therefore  the  Pharisees  held  Jesus 
to  account  for  violating  the  tradition  of  the  elders. 
In  their  eyes  this  tradition  was  based  on  the  Law,  and 
was  no  less  sacred  than  that.  Jesus  replied  that  the 
tradition  of  the  elders  was  radically  opposed  to  the 
commandment  of  God,  for  in  holding  one  they  left 
the  other.  Then  He  declared  to  the  people,  in  the 
hearing  of  the  Pharisees,  that  a  man  is  defiled  by 
that  which  comes  from  within  him,  and  not  by  that 
which  enters  him  from  without.  If  that  which  enters 
a  man  cannot  defile  him,  then  manifestly  the  touch 
of  unwashen  hands  upon  that  which  enters  a  man 
cannot  defile  him. 

Later,  Jesus  explained  to  His  disciples  this  saying 
which  seemed  to  them  obscure  and  probably  also 
antagonistic  to  the  Law.  He  says  in  His  explanation, 
that  what  is  from  within  defiles  because  it  comes 
from  the  heart,  and  that  what  is  from  without  cannot 
defile  because  it  does  not  enter  into  the  heart.  Thus 
it  is  plain  that  He  was  thinking  of  moral  purity,  and 
therefore    was    not    necessarily    in    conflict    with    the 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  iqi 

Levitical  law.  He  did  not  declare  that  all  sorts  of 
food  are  Levitically  clean;1  indeed,  He  did  not  touch 
the  matter  of  Levitical  cleanness  at  all,  but  He  at 
once  struck  deeper,  to  that  which  is  clean  or  unclean 
for  the  heart.  Of  course  we  may  infer  from  this  that 
He  considered  purity  of  heart  of  great  value,  in  com- 
parison with  which  Levitical  cleanness  was  an  in- 
significant thing ;  and  accordingly  we  may  say  with 
Wendt2  that  Jesus  thereby  excluded,  in  principle,  all 
ceremonial  legislation  which  aimed  at  Levitical  purity, 
from  the  perfect  righteousness  which  is  required  for 
the  kingdom  of  God.  But  that  is  not  equivalent  to 
saying  that  He  attacked  the  Levitical  law,  and  re- 
garded it  as  a  plant  which  His  heavenly  Father  had 
not  planted  (Mt.  xv.  13).  The  "plant"  which  His 
heavenly  Father  had  not  planted  was  the  tradition 
of  the  elders.  Not  so  the  Levitical  law.  Through 
this  ran  a  clear  religious  purpose,  and  that  purpose 
was  to  fit  the  people  of  Israel  for  fellowship  with 
Israel's  holy  God.3  This  law  Jesus  did  not  attack, 
but  fulfilled.  As  fulfilled  in  Him,  He  doubtless 
thought  of  it  as  inoperative  for  His  disciples,  though 
they  might  continue  to  observe  it  for  a  time  through 
the  force  of  habit,  or  out  of  regard  for  their  brethren, 

1  This  seems  to  have  been  the  view  of  the  second  evangelist,  Mk.  vii.  19. 

2  See  Die  I.ehre  Jesu,  ii.  221-224. 

8  Comp.  Schultz,  Alttestamentliche  Theologie,  ii.  65-78. 


102  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

that  they  might  not  offend  (Mt.  xvii.  24-27).  Jesus 
never  spoke  a  word  that  favored  a  violent  break  with 
the  reign  of  the  Law,  but  left  the  attitude  of  His  dis- 
ciples toward  that  reign  to  be  determined  from  within, 
with  the  development  of  their  Christian  life  and  thought. 

We  have  thus  far  seen  that  Jesus  defended  Him- 
self against  specific  charges  of  being  a  law-breaker. 
He  broke  the  traditions,  but  not  the  Law.  The  narra- 
tive of  His  life  represents  Him  as  mindful  of  the  Old 
Testament  statutes.  Thus  He  commanded  the  healed 
leper  to  show  himself  to  the  priests,  and  to  make  the 
required  offering  (Mk.  i.  44).  Not  only  so,  but  He 
did  this  with  an  air  of  severity,  as  though  to  make 
more  plain  that  while  He  recognized  it  as  His  duty 
to  heal  the  man,  He  did  not  forget  the  Law.  Again, 
when  He  healed  the  ten  lepers,  He  sent  them  to  the 
priests  (Lk.  xvii.  14).  He  kept  the  Passover  and 
paid  the  temple-tax  (Mk.  xiv.  12;  Mt.  xvii.  24).  He 
commanded  the  multitudes  to  observe  all  things  that 
are  taught  in  the  Law  (Mt.  xxiii.   3). 

When  we  turn  from  the  practice  of  Jesus  to  His 
teaching,  we  see  more  clearly  and  fully  what  His  posi- 
2.  The  Law  tion  was.  And,  first,  He  virtually  dis- 
teachine  of  tinguished  between  the  moral  and  the  cere- 
jesus.  monial    elements    in    the    Old    Testament, 

though  He  did  not  do  this  in  a  formal  way.  He 
teaches  that  the  weightier  matters  of  the  Law  are  judg- 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF    HEAVEN  103 

ment,  mercy,  and  faith  (Mt.  xxiii.  23),  while  the  duty 
of  tithing  belongs  to  the  less  important  things.  What 
He  held  to  be  true  in  regard  to  tithing,  we  must  sup- 
pose that  He  held  true  in  regard  to  all  similar  out- 
ward requirements.  They  were  to  be  regarded  as  of 
secondary  value.  Judgment,  mercy,  and  love  must  be 
put  first.  The  outward  has  its  place,  until  the  Mes- 
sianic fulfilment,  but  that  place  is  subordinate.  Prophets 
and  Law  in  their  deepest  and  most  vital  messages  are 
summed  up  by  Him  in  the  word  love.  The  ceremonial 
element  in  comparison  with  that  sinks  out  of  sight. 
It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  He  denied  to  the 
ceremonial  law  a  divine  purpose.  He  did  not.  It 
was  for  Him  a  part  of  the  Law  which  should  not  pass 
away  until  wholly  accomplished.  And  since  its  provi- 
dential purpose  was  akin  to  that  of  the  moral  law,  we 
may  agree  with  Weiss  that  Jesus  recognized  it  as  of  bind- 
ing authority,1  and  in  so  far  we  may  say  that  He  made 
no  distinction  between  the  moral  and  the  ceremonial 
law.  But  at  the  same  time  it  is  plain  that  He  made 
a  practical  distinction  between  them  on  the  ground 
of  their  intrinsic  values,  and  that  He  exalted  the  purely 
moral  precepts  of  the  Law.  This  position  was  really 
a  reversal  of  the  teaching  of  the  scribes,  as  Jesus  Him- 
self saw  and  declared.  They  exalted  the  ceremonial 
and  ignored  the  moral. 

1  See  Lehrbuch  der  bibl.  Tkeologie  des  N.  7.,  dritte  Auflage,  pp.  78-79. 


104  THE   REVELATION    OF  JESUS 

But,  secondly,  the  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  the  Law 
is  best  characterized  by  His  word  fulfil.  He  says 
that  He  came  not  to  destroy  the  old  but  to  fulfil  it 
(Mt.  v.  17).  This  is  the  great  and  unique  claim  which 
He  makes.  Then  He  explains  how  He  fulfils  the 
Law,  and  His  explanation  runs  on  this  wise.  The 
letter  of  the  Law  is  against  murder :  He  prohibits 
anger  (Mt.  v.  21-22).  The  letter  of  the  Law  is  against 
adultery  :  He  prohibits  the  look  of  lust  (Mt.  v.  27-28). 
The  Law  allowed  divorce,  therein  falling  below  the 
ideal  of  Genesis :  Jesus  goes  back  to  that  ideal 
(Mk.  x.  2-12;  Mt.  xix.  3-12).  The  Law  allowed 
the  return  of  evil  for  evil :  He  demands  the  return 
of  good  for  evil  (Mt.  v.  38).  The  Law  allowed  hatred 
of  an  enemy  :  He  required  love  (Mt.  v.  43).  But  while 
the  Law  allowed  hatred  of  an  enemy,  it  must  be  re- 
membered that,  according  to  Jesus  Himself,  this  same 
law  at  its  highest  made  supreme  love  of  God  and  equal 
love  of  the  neighbor  the  two  great  commandments 
(Mk.  xii.  28-34).  So  Christ's  fulfilment  of  the  Law 
is  a  fulfilment  of  it  as  a  whole.  Such  a  fulfilment  is 
consistent  with  direct  opposition  to  details  of  the  Law's 
teaching.  Thus,  for  example,  hatred  of  an  enemy,  in 
support  of  which  isolated  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment can  be  cited,  is  absolutely  incompatible  with 
membership  in  Christ's  kingdom.  Again,  the  con- 
cession   made   by  the  Law  to  the    hardness    of   men's 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF    HEAVEN  105 

hearts  in  the  matter  of  divorce,  Jesus  does  not  allow 
to  continue.  He  reinstates  the  primal  idea  of  the  in- 
dissolubleness  of  the  marriage  bond  and  does  away 
with  the  Mosaic  legislation.  Another  illustration  of 
the  point  in  hand  is  Christ's  prohibition  of  the  oaths 
in  vogue  among  the  Jews  (Mt.  v.  33-37). 

But  while  there  are  thus  points  at  which  Jesus  is 
radically  opposed  to  the  Law,  He  can  yet  declare  that 
He  is  not  come  to  destroy  it,  and  that  no  jot  or 
tittle  shall  pass  away  till  all  things  be  accomplished 
(Mt.  v.  18).1  For  there  is  a  higher  and  a  lower  in 
the  Old  Testament  itself.  There  are  ideals  now  seen 
and  again  lost  to  sight.  There  are  concessions  to 
the  imperfect  state  of  man's  development.  Jesus  ful- 
filled the  great  central  aims  of  .the  old  revelation,  and 
in  so  doing  set  aside  that  which  was  merely  temporary. 
He  saw  with  perfect  spiritual  vision  that  ideal  which 
was  seen  only  in  part  by  the  Old  Testament  lawgiver 
and  prophet,  and  He  erected  this  in  all  its  lofty  per- 
fection as  the  standard  for  every  member  of  His 
kingdom.  Thus  He  fulfilled,  or  made  perfect,  the 
Law :  first,  in  His  own  blameless  life,  and  also  in 
His  teaching.  What  the  Old  Testament  struggles 
after,   He   realizes,   and    realizes    in    a    purely   spiritual 

1  This  is  a  hyperbolical  statement  of  the  permanent  value  of  the  Law. 
For  an  attempt  to  refer  it  to  the  Law  as  completed  by  Jesus,  see  Wendt, 
Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  342. 


106  THE   REVELATION  .  OF   JESUS 

way.  Thus  He  abolished,  in  principle,  all  the  cere- 
monial of  the  Law,  though  he  left  the  actual  abolition 
of  it  to  be  accomplished  easily  and  gradually  in  the 
process  of  Christian  growth. 

As  we  pass  from  the  Synoptists  to  John,  the  terms 
righteous  and  righteousness  almost  entirely  disappear, 
d%  The  and  a  new  conception  claims  our  attention. 

!hecSh°f   When  the  old  terms  are  found'  they have 

Gospel.  the  same  content   as   in  the  Synoptists  (Jn. 

xvi.  8  ;  xv ii.  25).  The  new  terms  are  truth  (akrjOeia) 
and  true  or  genuine  (aXrjOivos).  The  term  truth 
is  plainly  akin  to  the  term  righteousness,  but  it 
cannot  be  regarded  as  strictly  identical  with  it.  It 
appears  that  true  and  truth  in  the  fourth  Gospel  are 
not  less  than  righteous  and  righteousness.  The  man 
who  docs  the  truth  or  is  of  the  truth,  in  the  language 
of  John,  is  a  righteous  man,  as  the  Synoptists  account 
righteousness.  For  to  be  of  the  truth  is  an  expression 
that  takes  one  not  into  the  sphere  of  the  intellect 
merely,  but  also  into  the  sphere  of  the  will  (Jn.  vii. 
17;  xviii.  37).  It  is  to  have  a  right  inclination  as 
well  as  a  right  sight  for  good  and  evil.  Again,  he 
who  seeks  the  glory  of  Him  who  sent  Jesus  is  true, 
and  no  unrighteousness  is  in  him  (Jn.  vii.  18).  That 
is  to  say,  in  regard  to  the  purpose  of  his  life,  he  is 
wholly  righteous.  So  when  Jesus  says  that  he  who 
does  the  truth  comes  to  the   light,  it  is  manifest   that 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN  io/ 

doing  the  truth  is  not  less  than  righteousness  (Jn. 
iii.  21).  The  truth  which  he  does  is,  of  course,  the 
truth  which  he  has.  It  is  not  the  full  truth  as  revealed 
by  Jesus,  for  in  that  case  the  Lord  would  not  have 
spoken  of  such  an  one  as  coming  to  the  light  and 
hearing  the  voice  of  the  Messiah  (John  iii.  21  ;  xviii.  37). 
That  would  no  longer  be  necessary.  But  what  he  does 
is  truth,  or  it  is  righteousness :  that  is  its  quality. 

But  while  true  and  truth  comprehend  all  that  is 
contained  in  righteous  and  righteousness,  they  present 
the  thought  from  a  different  angle,  and  they  have 
distinct  associations  of  their  own.  Thus,  in  the  first 
place,  while  the  word  righteousness  turns  our  thought 
to  a  moral  state,  the  word  truth,  as  used  in  John, 
brings  before  us  the  divine  standard.  Thus,  Jesus 
says  that  the  aim  of  His  mission  is  to  bear  witness 
to  the  truth  (Jn.  xviii.  37),  and  again  declares  that 
He  Himself  is  the  truth  (Jn.  xiv.  6).  This  truth 
makes  a  man  free  from  sin  (Jn.  viii.  32),  and  that 
freedom  is  practical  righteousness.  Thus  truth  goes 
before,  and  righteousness  follows.  Truth  is  the  deliv- 
erer, and  righteousness  the  state  of  deliverance.  This 
is  one  point  wherein  the  two  terms  are  not  commen- 
surate. Again,  the  word  truth  differs  from  the  word 
righteousness  in  that  it  has  a  more  distinct  suggestion 
of  the  ideal.  It  is  true  that  righteousness,  completed, 
is  the  ideal   of   character,   but  the  word    does   not    so 


108  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

directly  suggest  the  ideal  as  is  done  by  the  terms 
truth  and  genuine,  as  used  in  John.  Thus,  the  evan- 
gelist says  that  the  Law  was  given  by  Moses,  but 
truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ  (Jn.  i.  17).  He  did  not 
mean  that  the  Law  was  false.  It  witnessed  concerning 
Jesus,  and  in  so  far  at  least  was  true  (Jn.  v.  39).  But 
the  truth  of  Jesus  was  a  larger  truth  than  that  of  the 
Law.  The  ideal  of  truth,  as  the  ideal  of  grace,  was 
realized  in  Jesus.  Again,  this  significance  of  the  word 
truth  appears  in  Jn.  xiv.  6,  where  Jesus  says,  "I  am 
the  truth."  This  is  not  equivalent  to  saying  that  Jesus 
was  honesty  itself.  It  is  not  the  denial  of  all  falsehood 
in  His  nature  and  character,  but  it  is  the  affirmation  of 
the  presence  in  Him  of  the  full  revelation  of  God's 
thought  of  salvation. 

The  word  genuine  has  the  same  suggestion.  Jesus 
tells  the  Jews  that  His  Father  gives  them  the  true 
bread  out  of  heaven  (Jn.  vi.  32).  He  does  not 
thereby  affirm  that  the  manna  of  Moses  was  not  as 
truly  food  as  was  this  which  the  Father  was  offering 
to  them.  It  was  real  and  satisfying  food,  in  contrast 
to  the  unreal  and  unsatisfying;  but  it  was  for  the 
body  merely.  Hence  Jesus  said  that  it  was  not  the 
true,  that  is,  ideal,  bread.  It  was  not  such  bread  as 
most  fully  accords  with  the  idea  of  the  word.  The 
ideal  bread,  the  highest  nourishment  that  a  human 
spirit  can  receive,  is  Jesus  Himself.     In  like  manner, 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE  KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN 


109 


Jesus  says  that  He  is  the  true  vine  (Jn.  xv.  1),  that 
is,  the  idea  of  the  vine  is  perfectly  illustrated  in  Him. 
Thus  He  calls  God  the  only  true  God  (Jn.  xvii.  3), 
which  surely  means  more  than  saying  that  God  is  the 
only  real  God.  There  was  no  occasion  for  Jesus  to 
affirm  that  His  Father  was  the  only  real  God,  and 
that  all  the  other  so-called  gods  were  only  shadows, 
The  Jews  were  not  polytheists,  and  did  not  need  to 
be  told  that  their  God  was  the  only  God  in  existence, 
But  the  thought  of  Jesus  was  far  more  significant. 
The  world  had  not  known  God,  but  Jesus  had  known 
Him  (Jn.  xvii.  25);  and  now,  in  the  conscious  pos- 
session of  that  unique  knowledge,  He  affirms  that  the 
heavenly  Father  whom  He  had  known  is  the  only  being 
who  fulfils  the  idea  of  the  word  God.  He  is  the 
genuine,  the  ideal,  one.  Hence  it  is  true  in  regard  to 
Him  alone,  that  knowledge  of  His  will  is  vital  to  men. 

We  are  to  consider,   in  the  next  place,  how,  in  the 
thought  of  Jesus,  the  righteousness  of  the  kingdom  will 
express  itself  in  the  various  relationships  of  in.  The 
life,  and  first  in  relation  to  God.  mtnhThis 

The   religious    life     of     the    kingdom    of  ^dtion  to 
heaven    is    controlled    by   the    fundamental   a-  The 

spirit  of  the 

conception  of  the  personal,  ethical  fatherhood  religious  life, 
of  God.  The  righteous  man  is  a  son  of  God,  and  his 
relation  to  God  is  to  be  that  of  an  ideal  son.  His  life 
is  to  be  directed  by  regard  for  a  heavenly  Father,  and 


HO  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

not  according  to  the  letter  of  a  written  law.  This  fact 
makes  a  wide  difference  between  the  religious  life  of 
Christ's  kingdom  and  the  religious  life  of  the  Jews 
of  Christ's  day.  It  is  a  fact  which  continually  fur- 
nishes fresh  inspiration  to  high  moral  endeavor,  and 
creates  an  atmosphere  of  freedom  which  is  favorable 
to  the  development  of  the  best  character.  It  greatly 
simplifies  the  religious  life  of  Christ's  kingdom  since 
it  substitutes  the  will  of  a  Father,  personally  ascer- 
tained, in  the  place  of  a  complex  legal  system,  inter- 
preted by  scribes  and  priests. 

Jesus  does  not  legislate  on  the  religious  life  of  His 
kingdom  after  the  manner  of  Moses.  He  pronounces 
certain  things  blessed.  He  sets  up  an  ideal,  and  in- 
cites His  followers  to  strive  toward  it.  But  He  issues 
no  specific  statutes  for  the  outward  life.  His  yoke  is 
not  the  constraint  of  Thou  shall  and  Thou  shalt  not, 
but  the  constraint  of  a  voluntarily  assumed  submis- 
sion to  His  will,  the  inward  constraint  of  love  and 
reverence  for  a  person. 

The  first  of  the  broad  principles  laid  down  by 
Jesus  regarding  the  righteous  man's  relation  to  God 
b.  The  prin-  *s  trust.  God  is  worthy  of  perfect  confi- 
cipie  of  trust.  dence  because    He  is  a  perfect  father.     He 

knows  the  needs  of  his  children,  even  the  least  physi- 
cal needs  (Mt.  vi.  32);  He  is  lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  and  His  care  extends  to  the  minutest  wants  of 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  m 

His  children  (Mt.  xi.  25;  vi.  26;  x.  30).  Jesus  teaches 
that  God  will  certainly  provide  for  those  who  put 
their  trust  in  Him.  He  feeds  the  birds  and  arrays 
the  lilies  in  beauty,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  that 
He  will  neglect  His  human  children  (Mt.  vi.  26,  28). 
He  is  in  Himself  a  father,  and  hence  those  who  will 
receive  His  care,  He  cares  for  with  a  divine  fatherli- 
ness.  Since,  then,  God  is  a  father,  the  first  duty  of 
the  members  of  Christ's  kingdom  is  to  trust  Him. 
This  is  rather  taken  for  granted  by  Jesus  than  made 
the  subject  of  formal  and  definite  teaching.  His  rev- 
elation of  God  as  a  father,  is  the  final  and  supreme 
ground  of  trust ;  and  having  made  the  revelation,  He 
leaves  men,  in  a  large  measure,  to  infer  their  duty  of 
trust  and  to  fulfil  it.  Yet  not  wholly  so  ;  He  gives 
some  specific  suggestions.  The  disciples  are  to  exer- 
cise trust  in  regard  to  their  personal  and  daily  needs. 
They  must  not  be  anxious  for  food,  or  drink,  or  rai- 
ment. They  are  of  far  more  value  than  the  birds, 
and  yet  their  Father  feeds  the  birds  ;  and  of  much 
more  value  than  grass  which  flourishes  for  a  day  and 
then  is  burned,  and  yet  their  Father  clothes  this 
grass.  If  He  knows  what  the  birds  need,  and  what 
will  make  the  grass  beautiful,  then  surely  He  knows 
what  the  disciples  of  His  Son  need.  Therefore,  they 
should  drop  the  anxious  care  which  men  of  this 
world  have  for  these  material    things,  and  trusting  in 


112  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

God,  seek  His  kingdom  and  His  righteousness  (Mt. 
vi.  32-33).  Not  to  do  this,  but  to  say,  What  shall  I 
eat?  or,  What  shall  I  drink?  or,  Wherewithal  shall  I 
be  clothed  ?  is  to  be  as  a  Gentile,  and  as  though 
one  had  no  heavenly  Father. 

The  disciple  is  to  trust  God  also  in  all  the  needs 
of  his  work.  He  must  not  be  anxious  before  gov- 
ernors and  kings,  for  the  Spirit  of  His  Father  will 
speak  in  him  (Mt.  x.  19-20).  He  will  be  called 
Beelzebub,  and  will  be  treated  accordingly  (Mt.  x.  25), 
but  he  is  not  to  fear  the  hostility  of  a  world  which 
can  at  most  destroy  his  body  (Mt.  x.  28).  It  is  in 
this  connection  only  that  Jesus  ever  speaks  of  fearing 
God  (Mt.  x.  28).  But  this  fear  of  God  of  which  He 
speaks  is  consistent  with  trust  in  Him  as  the  heavenly 
Father,  for  He  is  to  be  feared  in  view  of  His  power 
and  not  in  view  of  His  character.  It  is  because  He 
is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  Gehenna,  while 
a  hostile  world  can  destroy  the  body  only  —  it  is  be- 
cause of  His  power  that  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  when 
tempted  to  fear  the  face  of  man,  are  exhorted  to  fear 
God.  Hence,  it  appears  that  the  fear  of  God,  of 
which  Jesus  speaks  as  possible  to  His  disciples,  does 
not  belong  at  all  to  the  ideal  Christian  life.  It  should 
spring  up  in  the  soul  only  when  the  soul  is  in  danger  of 
going  down  before  the  threats  and  blows  of  the  world. 

It  is  plain  from  these  passages  which  speak  of  trust 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN  1 1 3 

in  God  that  Jesus  did  not  contrast  it  with  knowledge, 
but  with  cowardice  and  doubt}  The  one  subject  on 
which  Jesus  claimed  to  have  unique  knowledge  was  God 
(Mt.  xi.  27 ;  Lk.  ix.  22),  and  this  was  therefore  the 
only  subject  on  which  He  claimed  to  impart  a  unique 
knowledge  to  His  disciples.  From  this  point  of  view, 
trust  in  God  was  surely  not  thought  of  by  Jesus  as  be- 
ing at  all  the  antithesis  of  knowledge.  The  disciple 
of  Jesus  should  know  God  more  accurately  and  com- 
pletely than  he  knows  any  other  being  or  subject  in  the 
universe.  Faith  is  not  contrasted  with  sight,  but  with 
cowardice  (Mk.  v.  36),  and  with  doubt  regarding  the 
goodness  and  faithfulness  of  God  (Mt.  vi.  30-34). 

This  filial  trust  in  God  which  Jesus  expected  of  His 
disciples  is  in  strong  contrast  with  one  of  the  most  prom- 
inent features  of  the  religious  life  of  the  Jews,  namely, 
trust  in  meritorious  works.  The  Pharisee  of  the  parable 
trusted  in  his  more  than  perfect  fulfilment  of  the  Law 
(Lk.  xviii.  12).  His  only  trust  in  God  was  that  God 
would  keep  an  honest  account  of  his  holy  life.  The 
scribes  taught  that  righteousness  was  secured  in  two 
ways,  namely,  by  doing  the  Law  and  by  good  works.2 
Every  effort  along  these  two  lines  was  reckoned  to  a 
man's  credit,  and  was  set  over  against  his  transgressions. 
If  a  man  believed  that  he  was  justified  and  should  inherit 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  I ehre  Jesu,  ii.  227. 

2  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmuds,  pp.  269-277. 

I 


114  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

the  Messianic  kingdom,  it  was  solely  on  the  ground  of 
merit.  When  Mar  Ukba  was  dying,  he  asked  for  his 
account,  that  is,  for  the  amount  of  alms  he  had  given. 
It  was  found  to  be  seven  thousand  pieces.  He  did  not 
believe  that  this  amount  was  sufficient  for  his  justifi- 
cation, that  is,  sufficient  to  outweigh  his  transgressions, 
and  therefore  he  gave  in  alms  half  his  remaining  fortune 
in  order  that  he  might  go  hence  in  safety.1  This  was 
the  spirit  of  the  scribes  in  the  time  of  Jesus ;  but  in  the 
Master's  teaching  the  disciple  must  trust  the  heavenly 
Father  to  give  the  kingdom.  It  is  not  earned,  but  re- 
ceived as  a  gift. 

It  may  also  be  noticed  in  this  connection  that,  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  trust  in  God  and  fear  of  God 
are  never  blended  with  trust  in  angels  and  fear  of 
Satan  or  the  demons.  His  conception  of  God  as  a 
father,  in  personal  contact  with  His  children,  ren- 
dered the  mediation  of  angels  unnecessary.  In  the 
Jewish  teaching,  angels  of  various  ranks  formed  a 
connection  between  the  distant  God  and  the  world. 
It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  Jesus  thinks  of  God  as 
near  and  of  the  angels  as  being  in  heaven,  rather 
than  God  in  heaven  and  the  angels  near.  With  the 
exception  of  a  single  instance,  and  that  in  a  story, 
Jesus  does  not  refer  to  angels  as  entering  into  any 
relation  to  men  on  earth.     This  exception  is  only  par- 

1  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmuds,  pp.  276-277. 


THE    LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  I  1 5 

tial,  for  it  was  not  until  the  death  of  Lazarus  that  the 
angels  came  to  him  (Lk.  xvi.  22).  Angels  are  in- 
habitants of  heaven,  according  to  the  references  of 
Jesus,  and  their  existence  and  activities  do  not  for 
the  present  concern  men  in  any  essential  manner 
(Lk.  xv.  10;  Mt.  xiii.  39;  xvi.  27;  xxii.  30;  xxiv.  36; 
xviii.  10).  Thus  the  thought  of  Jesus  regarding 
angels  was  extremely  simple  as  compared  with  that 
of  the  Jewish  teachers.  The  same  is  true  regarding 
His  conception  of  demons.  He  never  suggests  that 
His  disciples  have  anything  to  fear  from  them : 
neither  they  nor  the  angels  come  between  the  dis- 
ciple and  his  heavenly  Father. 

Another  fundamental  principle  which  characterizes 
the  righteous  man  in  his  relation  to  God,  and  one  that 
is  closely  related   to  the  foregoing,  is   love. 

c.  The 

This  principle  does  not  appear  in  the  teach-  principle  of 
ing  of  Jesus  in  a  crystallized  form,  but 
rather  as  a  subtle  atmosphere,  or  as  Beyschlag  says, 
as  a  great  unexpressed  presupposition.  The  life  and 
teaching  of  Jesus  as  a  whole  called  for  a  paramount 
love  of  God,  and  indeed  actually  developed  love  for 
Him  far  beyond  what  any  other  person  or  force  in 
history  has  ever  produced ;  but  His  teaching  does 
not  call  for  love  of  God  in  a  direct  and  formal  way. 
Jesus  recognized  the  love  of  God  as  the  greatest 
commandment   of    the    Old    Testament,    but    He    did 


U6  THE    REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

not  reenact  this  commandment  (Mk.  xii.  28-30;  Mt. 
xxii.  36-40).  This  surely  was  not  because  He  rated 
the  love  of  God  any  lower  than  did  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. On  the  contrary,  since  He  came  to  fulfil  or 
perfect  the  Law,  we  must  infer  that  He  sought  to 
give  this  fundamental  principle  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment even  fuller  sway,  and  to  make  it  dominant  in 
each  member  of  His  kingdom.  But  He  did  not  seek 
to  do  this  by  reenacting  the  formal  commandment  to 
love  God.  He  evidently  thought  that  there  was  a 
better  way,  and  that  this  better  way  was  to  reveal 
God  to  men.  Instead  of  commanding  love,  He 
taught  His  disciples  that  God  was  their  Father;  and 
He  trusted  that  this  divine  revelation  of  fatherhood 
would  win  a  love  which  could  not  be  legislated  into 
existence.  Every  deed  of  love  that  Jesus  wrought, 
and  every  word  that  He  spoke  about  the  love  of  the 
Father,  was  an  appeal  to  the  hearts  of  men  to  love 
God.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  His  life,  whose  pur- 
pose was  to  make  the  Father  known  to  men,  was  one 
consistent  service  of  love,  implies  that  He  regarded 
the  love  of  God  as  the  dominant  principle  in  the 
religious  life  of  His  disciples.  Yet  He  passes  over 
it  in  almost  unbroken  silence.  In  His  kingdom,  then, 
the  love  of  God  was  not  to  be  the  fruit  of  outward 
statute,  but  rather  the  echo  of  the  heavenly  Lover's 
voice,  the  spontaneous  homage  of  the  heart  when  it 
comes  to  know  that  it  is  beloved  of  God. 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  117 

Again,  the  righteous  man  in  his  relation  to  God  is 
both  humble  and  sincere.  How  highly  Jesus  esteemed 
these  virtues  may  be  seen  from  His  stern  d  Humi]in, 
invective  against  the  religious  pride  and  in-  and  sincerity. 
sincerity  of  scribes  and  Pharisees.  They  paraded  their 
religion,  as  was  natural,  on  the  ground  of  their  theory 
of  merit.  In  their  own  thought,  their  good  works  and 
their  perfect  fulfilment  of  all  the  commandments  of 
the  Law  justified  them  in  an  outward  display  of  their 
righteousness.  They  sounded  a  trumpet  before  them 
to  call  attention  to  their  benevolent  acts  (Mt.  vi.  2). 
They  prayed  where  the  most  men  could  see  them 
(Mt.  vi.  5).  They  made  their  fasts  as  noticeable  as 
possible  by  disfiguring  their  faces  (Mt.  vi.  16).  They 
claimed  the  first  seats  in  the  synagogues  and  at  feasts 
because  of  their  superior  holiness  (Mk.  xii.  39).  They 
wished  to  be  called  rabbi  and  father  (Mt.  xxiii.  8-9). 
They  showed  their  remarkable  piety  by  tithing  mint, 
anise,  and  cummin  (Mt.  xxiii.  23);  also  by  scrupulous 
washings  of  their  hands,  their  cups  and  platters  (Mk. 
vii.  1-23;  Mt.  xxiii.  25).  They  thanked  God  that 
they  were  so  much  better  than  other  men,  and  publicly 
praised  their  own  superabounding  righteousness  (Lk. 
xviii.  9-14).  All  this  was  an  abomination  in  the  sight 
of  Jesus,  and  He  believed  that  it  was  an  abomina- 
tion also  in  the  sight  of  God  (Lk.  xvi.  15).  In  the 
religious  life  of  His  disciples  there  must  be  a  different 


Il8  THE   REVELATION  OF   JESUS 

spirit.  When  they  give  alms  and  pray  and  fast,  it  must 
be  in  secret  (Mt.  vi.  3,  6,  17-18).  They  are  to  do 
good  works  with  the  desire  that  their  heavenly  Father 
may  be  glorified,  rather  than  they  themselves  (Mt. 
v.  16).  They  are  to  find  their  rest  in  subjection  to  one 
who  is  lowly  (Mt.  xi.  29).  Instead  of  boasting  as  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees  did,  the  disciples  of  Jesus  are  to 
be  of  such  a  spirit  that  they  will  say,  when  they  have 
done  all  things  that  are  commanded  them,  "  We  are 
unprofitable  servants :  we  have  done  that  which  it 
was  our  duty  to  do"  (Lk.  xvii.  10).  Thus  Jesus  taught 
that  the  members  of  His  kingdom,  in  their  attitude 
toward  God,  were  to  be  radically  different  from  the 
Pharisees.  Genuine  humility  must  take  the  place  of 
pride. 

With  equal  emphasis  does  Jesus  teach  that  the  right- 
eous man  in  his  relation  to  God  will  be  a  sincere  man. 
Thus  He  has  a  beatitude  for  the  pure  in  heart,  and 
purity  of  heart  involves  sincerity  (Mt.  v.  8).  Again, 
it  is  the  man  whose  eye  is  single  into  whom  the  light 
enters,  and  the  single  eye  is  the  symbol  of  the  pure 
purpose  (Mt.  vi.  22-23).  The  man  whose  eye  is 
single  does  not  attempt  to  serve  both  God  and  mammon 
(Mt.  vi.  24),  as  some  of  the  Pharisees  who  were  lovers 
of  money  tried  to  do  (Lk.  xvi.  14).  He  is  not  as  the 
soil  that  receives  the  good  seed,  and  at  the  same  time 
contains  seeds  of    thorns,  which  sprout  and  grow  and 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  119 

choke  the  good  seed  (Mk.  iv.  7).  The  single-eyed  man 
is  rather  the  good  soil  which  bears  fruit. 

Jesus  characterized  the  religious  teachers  of  His  day 
as  having  a  sheep's  clothing  and  a  wolf's  heart  (Mt. 
vii.  15),  that  is  to  say,  they  were  insincere.  All  their 
religious  rites  were  performed  that  they  might  be  seen 
of  men  (Mt.  xxiii.  5),  and  therefore  were  of  no  value 
(Mt.  vii.  22).  The  estimate  which  Jesus  put  on 
sincerity  may  be  inferred  from  the  answer  which  He 
returned  to  those  Jews  who  charged  Him  with  insin- 
cerity (Mk.  iii.  20-22,  28-30).  They  said  that  He  did 
His  signs  by  Beelzebub,  while  professing  to  do  them  by 
the  power  of  God.  It  is  plain  that  they  were  insincere 
in  this,  for  they  knew  that  the  works  of  Jesus  were 
beneficent,  and  most  unlike  Satan's  works.  Jesus 
replied  to  this  charge  with  words  of  solemn  warning. 
He  said,  in  substance,  that  this  insincerity,  this  attribut- 
ing to  the  prince  of  evil  what  they  knew  to  be  good, 
was  near  to  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  hath 
never  forgiveness.  Thus  it  is  plain  that  Jesus  thought 
of  sincerity  and  humility  as  fundamental  to  the  right 
attitude  of  men  toward  God. 

Since  the  disciple  of  Jesus,  or  the  righteous  man,  is 
a  son  of  the  heavenly  Father,  it  is  assumed 

J  e.   Commun- 

that   he   will  commune    with  Him  in  prayer,    ion  with  the 

Father. 

This  feature  of  the  life  of  Christ's  disciples  is 
relatively    prominent   in    His  teaching,  as    prayer   was 


T20  THE    REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

prominent  in  His  own  experience.  The  character  and 
form  of  the  disciple's  prayer  are  determined  by  the 
fact  that  God  is  his  father.  The  disciple  comes  directly 
into  His  presence.  He  shuts  out  everything  that  might 
disturb  his  personal  converse  with  God.  Jesus  was  in 
the  habit  of  retiring  into  solitude  for  prayer,  and  He 
taught  His  disciples  to  go  into  the  inner  chamber  (Mt. 
vi.  6).  This  specific  direction  was  doubtless  occasioned 
by  the  fact  that  the  religious  teachers  of  the  time  loved 
to  pray  in  synagogues  and  at  the  corners  of  streets  (Mt. 
vi.  5 ).  What  they  desired  was  the  recognition  of  men, 
not  communion  with  God.  It  was  not  their  position  in 
itself,  but  their  spirit,  of  which  Jesus  disapproved.  But 
since  the  spirit  was  manifested  in  the  choice  of  conspic- 
uous places,  Jesus  could  suggest  the  true  spirit  by  tell- 
ing His  disciples  to  enter  into  the  inner  chamber.  The 
end  in  view  is  communion  with  the  Father.  Again, 
vain  repetitions,  such  as  the  Gentiles  use,  cannot  be 
used  by  the  disciple  who  prays  to  God  as  his  father  (Mt. 
vi.  7).  For  since  the  disciple  knows  that  God  is  his 
father,  he  knows  that  prayers  are  not  needed  to  move 
God  to  be  gracious.  The  disciple  is  not  heard  because 
of  his  "much  speaking,"  but  because  God  is  his  father. 
His  prayer  is  not  to  inform  God  of  his  needs,  for  God, 
his  heavenly  father,  knows  them  before  he  asks  (Mt. 
vi.  8).  So  the  fatherhood  of  God  requires  simplicity  in 
prayer. 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF    HEAVEN  121 

Again,  the  encouragement  to  prayer  lies  in  the  father- 
hood of  God.  It  is  this  fact  which  makes  it  more  cer- 
tain that  He  will  give  good  things  to  those  who  ask, 
than  that  earthly  fathers  will  give  good  gifts  to  their 
children  (Mt.  vii.  7— 11).  Jesus  confirms  this  statement 
by  an  appeal  to  the  general  experience  of  the  people  of 
God.  Every  one  who  asks  receives,  every  one  who  seeks 
finds,  and  every  one  who  knocks  has  the  door  opened. 
That  is  proof  that  the  Father  delights  to  give.  So 
great  is  the  confidence  of  Jesus  in  the  Father's  readi- 
ness to  give  good  gifts  to  His  children,  that  He  makes 
the  agreement  of  even  two  disciples  sufficient  ground 
for  the  granting  of  any  request  (Mt.  xviii.  19-20).  It 
does  not  seem  to  be  His  object  here,  to  commend  the 
duty  of  two  persons  to  unite  in  prayer  for  a  common 
end,  but  rather  to  set  forth  the  Father's  willingness  to 
hear  and  help  His  children.  In  line  with  this  general 
thought  are  the  parables  of  the  Unrighteous  Judge  and 
the  Three  Loaves  (Lk.  xviii.  1-8 ;  xi.  5-8).  For  these 
parables  do  not  inculcate  the  duty  of  insistence  in 
prayer,  but  rather  magnify  the  generous  grace  of  God. 
If  a  man,  awakened  at  midnight  by  a  friend  who  desires 
bread  for  an  emergency,  at  first  excuses  himself,  and 
afterward,  because  of  the  friend's  urgency,  rises  and 
gives  him  bread,  how  much  more  certainly  will  God  give 
to  those  who  ask  Him !  He  does  not  need  to  be  awak- 
ened, and  He  cannot  be  irritated  by  continual  asking. 


122  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

In  like  manner,  if  a  judge  who  fears  neither  man  nor 
God  is  moved  by  a  poor  widow's  repeated  petition  for 
justice,  how  much  more  certainly  will  God  avenge  His 
elect  who  cry  to  Him  day  and  night !  It  is  true  that 
the  evangelist  says  this  parable  was  spoken  to  teach 
that  men  should  always  pray  and  not  faint.  But  why 
should  they  offer  ceaseless  prayer  ?  Because  God,  like 
the  unrighteous  judge,  cannot  be  moved  save  by  strenu- 
ous and  urgent  supplications?  No,  for  that  would  con- 
tradict Jesus'  fundamental  teaching  on  the  fatherhood 
of  God.  They  are  to  continue  in  prayer  unto  God  be- 
cause, as  their  father,  He  is  sure  to  hear  and  answer. 
The  certainty  that  His  love  will  grant  the  desired  bless- 
ing, at  the  right  time,  is  the  reason  why  they  should  not 
faint  but  keep  their  eyes  lifted  up  unto  the  hills. 

Finally,  it  is  in  keeping  with  the  central  fact  of  the 
fatherhood  of  God  that  Jesus  prescribes  no  form  of 
prayer,  but  leaves  that  to  be  determined  by  the  varying 
circumstances.  Fatherhood  invites  to  familiar  converse, 
to  free  outpourings  of  heart.  When  the  disciples  asked 
Jesus  to  teach  them  to  pray  as  John  had  taught  his  dis- 
ciples, He  gave  them  a  model  but  not  a  ritual  (Lk.  xi.  i ). 
He  said,  "  After  this  manner  pray  ye  "  (Mt.  vi.  9).  He 
did  not  give  them  a  set  form  of  words  from  which  they 
were  not  to  depart,  or  to  which  they  were  to  attribute 
any  peculiar  value.  Had  He  done  this,  it  is  not  proba- 
ble that  the  prayer  would  have  been  preserved  in  two  so 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE  KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  1 23 

widely  divergent  forms  as  those  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 
Matthew  has  seven  petitions,  Luke  only  five.  The 
Greek  text  of  Matthew  has  fifty-seven  words,  and  that 
of  Luke  only  thirty-eight.  This  wide  difference  be- 
tween Matthew  and  Luke  seems  to  indicate  that  the 
Lord's  Prayer  was  not  regarded  by  the  first  generation 
of  Christians  as  a  ritual,  but  as  a  model  to  be  used  with 
Christian  freedom. 

As  a  model  for  prayer,  the  words  of  Jesus  suggest, 
first,  what  we  have  already  seen  elsewhere,  that  the 
prayers  of  the  disciples  should  be  framed  and  offered  in 
the  consciousness  of  the  fatherhood  of  God.  They  are 
to  begin  with  "  Our  Father  "  or  "  My  Father."  Then 
it  suggests  that  prayers  should  be  brief )  a  suggestion 
that  is  seconded  by  the  example  of  Jesus.  All  of  His 
recorded  prayers  are  short,  even  that  of  the  awful  hour 
in  Gethsemane.  True,  it  is  once  said  that  Jesus  spent 
an  entire  night  in  prayer  (Lk.  vi.  12),  and  He  seems,  on 
other  occasions,  to  have  spent  several  hours  in  prayer 
{e.g.  Mk.  i.  35);  but  we  are  probably  to  think  of  these 
periods  as  periods  of  devout  meditation  and  communion 
with  God,  rather  than  of  supplication. 

Again,  the  model  for  prayer  begins  with  the  divine 
interests,  the  name,  the  kingdom,  and  the  will  of  God, 
and  thus  it  turns  the  thought  and  desire  to  the  great 
things  of  life  and  immortality.  These  are  to  be  put  first 
in  the  prayers  of  the  disciples.     The  child  is  not  to  con- 


124  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

sider  its  own  personal  affairs  chiefly,  but  the  affairs  of 
the  Father,  the  things  which  will  glorify  Him.  And 
yet  these  things  of  the  Father,  when  rightly  considered, 
are  the  highest  and  truest  interests  of  the  child.  And 
finally,  the  model  for  prayer  suggests  that  the  disciple 
in  his  praying  should  believe  that  the  affairs  of  his  in- 
dividual life,  material  as  well  as  spiritual,  are  of  interest 
to  God.  Hence  he  is  to  ask  for  daily  bread,  for  since 
the  great  God  is  his  father,  He  must  be  mindful  of  even 
this  need  and  must  take  pleasure  in  supplying  it.  The 
disciple  is  to  ask  that  he  may  be  led  in  ways  where 
he  will  not  be  temptc  i,  which  of  course  implies  that  his 
little  life  is  wholly  known  to  the  Father,  and  that  the 
Father  desires  to  direct  and  control  it.  He  is  also  to 
ask  for  the  pardon  of  his  sins,  and  it  is  implied  that  God 
will  grant  even  this,  when  asked  in  a  filial  spirit. 

Thus  we  see  that  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  the  right- 
eous man's  relation  to  God  in  prayer  is  determined 
throughout  by  the  thought  of  the  fatherly  character  of 
God.  This  fact  invites  to  frequent  communion,  to  sim- 
ple, large,  and  confiding  petitions. 

The  position  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  religious  cere- 
monies for  His  kingdom  is  in  strongest  con- 
righteous        trast  to  the  Jewish  views  of  His  time.      The 

man  and 

religious         religious    teachers    around    Him    taught    an 
elaborate  system  of   outward  rites  as  neces- 
sary to  salvation.     They  not  only  laid  great  stress  upon 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  125 

all  the  requirements  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  as  had  been 
done  with  increasing  ardor  since  the  days  of  Ezra,  the 
scribe,  but  the  enactments  of  tradition  were  far  more 
numerous  tha^  the  statutes  of  the  old  Law,  and  they 
were  regarded  as  no  less  sacred  and  binding  upon  the 
conscience.  Thus  the  entire  life  of  the  devout  Jew 
was  covered  with  a  mesh  of  religious  rites.  The 
scribes  had  laid  heavy  burdens  on  the  shoulders  of 
men,  and  grievous  to  be  borne  (Mt.  xxiii.  4).  From 
this  burden  Jesus  from  the  first  kept  His  shoulders 
free ;  He  ignored  all  the  legislation  of  the  scribes. 
We  have  already  considered  His  own  relation  to  the 
Law,  and  have  seen  that  while  He  observed  its  ordi- 
nances He  claimed  to  fulfil  it,  or  to  make  it  perfect. 
It  was,  of  course,  this  perfected  law  which  He  designed 
for  His  kingdom,  and  since  this  law  was  inward  and 
spiritual,  its  acceptance  and  observance  involved  a 
release  from  all  the  outward  requirements  of  the  old 
Law.  It  raised  the  disciples  to  a  plane  of  freedom, 
to  a  life  ruled  from  within  and  not  from  without.1 
Thus  in  this  point  the  teaching  of  Jesus  transcended 
His  own  practice.  He  Himself  observed  outward 
rites  which  His  teaching  was  destined  to  destroy. 
He  stood  on  the  line  between  the  old  and  the  new, 
but  in  vital  connection  with  both.  He  could  not  lead 
out  of  the   old  into  the  new  without   having  in   Him- 

l-Comp.  Bruce,  The  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  79. 


126  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

self  the  spirit  of  the  new  and  at  the  same  time  having 
upon  Him  the  forms  of  the  old.  But  when  the  transi- 
tion was  once  accomplished,  the  forms  of  the  old  could 
be  dropped,  and  must  inevitably  be  dropped  as  the 
perfected  law  in  Jesus  came  in  between  the  disciples 
and  the  old  rudimentary  Law.  In  accordance  with 
this  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  the  Law,  we  find  that  He 
has  no  teaching  for  His  disciples  in  regard  to  outward 
religious  rites.  He  refers  to  fasting,  ceremonial  clean- 
ness, and  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  but  with  a 
single  exception  He  never  does  this  spontaneously.  He 
speaks  of  them  only  when  the  correctness  of  his  atti- 
tude toward  them  is  challenged.  The  exceptional  pas- 
sage is  Mt.  vi.  1 6- 1 8.  Here  Jesus  refers  to  fasting, 
and  does  it  of  His  own  motive.  He  tells  His  disciples 
that  when  they  fast,  it  must  be  in  secret,  unto  God  and 
not  unto  men.  Their  outward  appearance  is  not  to  be 
that  of  fasting  ;  and  thus  He  intimates  that  the  rite 
itself,  as  far  as  men  can  take  cognizance  of  it,  is  of  no 
value. 

The  defence  which  Jesus  gave  of  His  attitude  toward 
fasting,  ceremonial  cleanness,  and  the  Sabbath,  has  al- 
ready been  considered.  In  each  case  He  justified 
His  conduct  and  that  of  His  disciples.  They  might 
fast  if  they  had  sorrow  of  heart,  but  as  members  of 
His  kingdom  they  should  not  be  sorrowful.  In  the 
matter   of   purity,   they   ought   to   think   of   the    heart 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN 


127 


rather  than  the  hands,  or  what  is  put  into  the  mouth. 
As  for  the  Sabbath,  it  was  ordained  to  minister  to 
them  and  not  to  have  lordship  over  them.  Thus  the 
words  of  Jesus  in  connection  with  these  specific 
charges  are  in  harmony  with  the  principle  which  He 
lays  down  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Such  being  the  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  the  Law, 
we  should  not  expect  that  He  would  institute  new 
rites  for  His  kingdom,  and  as  far  as  our  records  go 
we  find  that  He  did  not.  It  is  true  that,  according 
to  the  fourth  Gospel,  He  indorsed  the  rite  of  water- 
baptism,  but  even  this  was  not  imposed  upon  His 
disciples  as  a  law.  In  the  early  Judean  ministry, 
before  Jesus  fully  began  His  Messianic  work,  He 
allowed  His  disciples  to  baptize,  as  John  had  done 
and  was  still  doing.  But  it  is  significant  that  as  soon 
as  Jesus  took  up  His  work  in  Galilee,  with  which 
the  first  three  Gospels  begin,  this  rite  of  water-baptism 
disappears  and  leaves  no  trace  behind.  It  is  never 
once  alluded  to  by  Jesus  in  connection  with  a  man's 
entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  In  the  whole 
course  of  the  Synoptic  narrative,  with  the  exception 
of  Mt.  xxviii.  19,  it  is  never  mentioned;  nor  is  it  alluded 
to  in  the  "fourth  Gospel  after  the  close  of  the  early 
Judean  ministry.  It  is  therefore  certain  that  the 
rite  of  baptism  had  no  place  in  the  Messianic  activity 
of   Jesus.       If   men    could   not   be    received   into    His 


128  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

kingdom  without  baptism,  then  it  is  altogether  proba- 
ble that  we  should  have  references  in  the  Gospel  to 
the  administration  of  the  rite ;  and  it  is  further  proba- 
ble, we  may  say  certain,  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
would  have  had  something  to  say  about  this  indis- 
pensable condition  of  discipleship.  Therefore  the  in- 
junction of  Mt.  xxviii."  19,  that  the  followers  of  Jesus 
should  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  comes  wholly  unexpected.  The  prominence 
which  it  gives  to  an  outward  rite  is  not  in  accord 
with  the  spirit  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  It  is  im- 
probable that  Jesus  passed  through  His  ministry  up 
to  the  last  hour  without  reference  to  baptism  and 
without  enacting  a  single  law  for  the  outward  life  of 
His  disciples,  and  then  in  that  last  hour  suddenly 
departed  from  His  previous  position  and  method, 
and  gave  His  disciples  a  positive  statute  for  the  out- 
ward life.  Moreover,  there  is  strong  evidence  of  an- 
other sort  that  this  verse  in  Matthew  cannot  be 
attributed  to  Jesus.  Throughout  the  apostolic  age 
there  is  no  trace  of  the  Trinitarian  formula  of  baptism. 
The  apostles  baptized  into  the  name  of  Jesus,  and 
into  no  other  name,  as  far  as  the  New  Testament 
writings  inform  us.  Now,  had  it  been  known  that 
Jesus  left  a  command  to  baptize  into  the  name  of 
the   Father,  the  Son,  and    the  Holy  Spirit,  this-  prac^ 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN  129 

tice  of  the  apostolic  age  would  be  totally  unintelligible. 
Would  Peter  have  ignored  a  farewell  command  of 
his  Lord,  and  have  baptized,  as  he  did,  simply  into 
the  name  of  Jesus  (Acts  ii.  38  ;  x.  48)  ?  Would  Paul 
have  baptized  into  the  name  of  Jesus,  as  he  did,  had 
there  been  extant  in  the  Church  a  command  of  Jesus 
to  baptize  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  (Rom.  vi.  3;  Gal.  iii.  27)?  This  is 
incredible.1 

It  is  true,  however,  that  the  very  existence  of  baptism 
in  the  apostolic  church  from  the  first,  and  the  absence 
of  any  suggestion  that  it  was  unauthorized,  is  proof 
that  the  apostles  believed  the  rite  to  be  in  accord  with 
the  mind  of  Jesus.  We  cannot  go  so  far  as  Beyschlag2 
and  say  that  the  practice  of  the  apostles  cannot  be 
explained  unless  there  was  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  be- 
hind it.  For  the  early  church  appointed  deacons,  and 
later  elders,  but  there  was  certainly  no  command  of 
Jesus  back  of  these  institutions.  The  apostles,  of 
course,  believed  that  they  had  the  approval  of  Christ 
in  the  appointment  of  church  officers,  as  no  doubt  they 
had ;  and  in  like  manner  they  must  have  believed  that 
the  rite  of  baptism  which  they  performed  in  His  name 
was  acceptable  to  Him.      But  the  existence  of  the  rite 

1  Comp.  Teichmann,  "  Die  Taufe  bei  Paulus,"  Zeitschrift  filr  Theologie 
und  Kirche,  1896;    \Vendt,  Die  l.ehre  Jesu,  ii.  610. 

2  See  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  i.  181-1S2. 

K 


130  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

in  the  apostolic  age  no  more  presupposes  an  explicit 
command  of  Christ  than  does  the  existence  of  the  office 
of  deacon  and  elder. 

We  must,  therefore,  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  regard 
the  formula  of  Mt.  xxviii.  19  as  an  expression  of 
ecclesiastical  belief  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Paul, 
perhaps  at  the  close  of  the  first  century. 

The  case  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  different  (Mk.  xiv. 
22-25).  It  is  unquestionable  that  Jesus  instituted  this, 
and  it  seems  most  probable  that  He  expected  its  con- 
tinual observance  among  His  disciples.  Nor  does  its 
institution  come  unexpected.  It  was  natural  that  Jesus 
should  leave  a  memorial  of  Himself,  when  He  departed 
from  His  disciples ;  and  natural  that  He  should  put  in 
parabolic  form  the  great  central  lesson  of  the  disciples' 
dependence  upon  Him.  Moreover,  the  observance  of 
the  Supper  is  not  commanded,  but  is  rather  invited. 
Mark  has  no  command  to  observe  the  Supper.  Luke 
has  an  exhortation  in  connection  with  the  bread,  but  not 
with  the  wine.  Matthew  has  an  exhortation  with  both 
bread  and  wine.  Now  if  Jesus  had  given  an  explicit 
command  to  observe  the  Supper,  it  would  be  strange 
that  the  oldest  Gospel  should  have  no  trace  of  it.  And, 
further,  if  Jesus  had  strictly  commanded  the  observance 
of  the  Supper,  it  is  probable  that  He  would  have  fixed 
a  time  for  it.  Finally,  the  view  that  the  observance  of 
the  Supper  is  not  commanded  but  invited  best  accords 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN  131 

with  its  character  as  a  memorial  of  love,  since  love  is 
not  treated  by  Jesus  as  subject  to  an  outward  command. 

Therefore  we  conclude  that  Jesus  did  not  institute  for 
His  disciples  any  rite  of  a  legal  nature.  The  only  out- 
ward observance  which  He  certainly  instituted  was  a 
memorial  of  love,  an  observance  which  loses  its  mean- 
ing and  force  when  legally  interpreted. 

It  remains  now  to  consider  the  thought  of  Jesus  on 
the  relation  of  a  righteous  man  to  his  fellow-  iv.  The 
men.     The  moral  teaching  of  Jesus,  like  His  man  Inhis 
religious  teaching,  is  dominated  by  one  and  relatlonto 

&  °'  J  men. 

the  same  great  conception,  namely,  that  of  a-  The  sPirit 

r  J  of  the  ethics 

the  fatherly  character  of  God.  The  morality  of  jesus. 
of  Jesus  is  purely  religious  and  controlled  by  the 
thought  of  God's  relation  to  the  individual  soul.1  The 
righteous  man's  duty  to  his  fellow-believers  and  to  his 
fellow-men  springs  out  of  the  relation  which  subsists 
between  him  and  God.  He  is  a  son  of  God,  and  this 
fact  controls  his  ethical  life.  There  is  no  place  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  for  a  morality  which  is  not  based 
upon  religion. 

Jesus'  conception  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  gave  to 
His  moral  teaching  a  characteristic  intensive  and  ex- 
tensive element.  It  involves  unselfish  love,  and  it 
involves  the  exercise  of  this  toward  all  men.  Hence,  it 
is  the  dominant  fact  in  His  teaching  on  the  righteous 

1  Comp.  Ehrhardt,  Der  Grundchai-akter  der  Ethik  Jesu,  p.  no. 


132  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

man's  relation  to  men.  It  involves  the  thought,  as  has 
already  been  intimated,  that  brotherhood  is  a  broader 
term  than  discipleship. 

There  are  certain  passages  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus 

in  which  the  brother  is  the  fellow-disciple  and  no  other. 

Such,  for  example,  is  Mk.  iii.  35,  where  Jesus 

b.  The  mean- 
ings of  calls  those  His  brothers  who  do  the  will  of 

His  Father  in  heaven.     It  is  plain  that  this 

brotherhood  is   conditioned  upon   a  spiritual  fact,  and 

hence  is  limited  (Mt.  xii.  50).     We  find  the  same  usage 

in  the  judgment  scene  in   Mt.  xxv.  31-46.      Those  to 

whom  Jesus  refers  as  "these  my  brothers,  these  least," 

are   those    on    His    right   hand,    who    are    also    called 

"righteous  "  and  "blessed of  my  Father."     Once  more, 

when  Jesus  tells  Simon  that  He  has  prayed  for  him, 

that  his  faith  may  not  fail,  and  adds  the  injunction  that 

when  he  has  been  turned  again,  he  should  stablisJi  his 

brothers  (Lk.  xxii.  32),  the  "brothers  "  are  of  necessity 

fellow-disciples.     Only  such  could  be  stablisJied  in  faith, 

for  others  would  need  to  be  brought  into  the  faith,  first 

of  all,  before  they  could  be  established ;    and  to  such 

only  would  Peter's  experience  be  applicable  who  had 

come  perilously  near  falling  away  from  Christ.     Here, 

therefore,  the  word  brother  is  necessarily  limited  to  the 

fellow-disciple. 

In  other  passages  the  word  brother  is  as  plainly  used 

in   a  comprehensive   sense,   meaning  the   brother-man, 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  133 

irrespective  of  his  religious  faith.  Such  is  the  case,  for 
example,  in  Mt.  v.  22,  "  Every  one  who  is  angry  with 
his  brother  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment."  The 
word  brother  cannot  be  limited  here  to  the  fellow- 
believer.  For  the  very  point  of  the  passage  is  that 
Jesus  goes  back  from  the  act  of  murder  to  the  passion 
of  anger  in  the  heart,  and  declares  that  this  is  worthy  of 
judgment.  It  is  anger  itself,  rather  than  the  ripe  fruit  of 
anger,  that  is  condemned.  But  anger  is  anger,  whether 
the  brother  believes  as  we  do  or  not,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  limit  the  scope  of  Jesus'  word  to  any  class  of  people. 
Further  than  this,  the  old  law  of  murder  was  as  broad 
as  humanity.  It  read,  "  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood, 
by  man  also  shall  his  blood  be  shed  "  (Gen.  ix.  6). 
This  fact  also  requires  that  the  brother  of  whom  Jesus 
speaks  in  the  passage  under  discussion  be  understood  as 
the  brother-man,  and  not  limited  to  the  fellow-disciple. 
Again,  when  Jesus  speaks  of  seeing  a  mote  in  the 
brother  s  eye  (Mt.  vii.  3),  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that 
He  is  thinking  of  the  fellow-believer  merely.  The 
entire  context  is  against  such  a  limitation.  Jesus  is 
dealing  with  purposes  of  the  heart,  and  purposes  of 
the  heart  are  right  or  wrong  in  themselves.  Finally, 
in  Mt.  xxiii.  8-9,  when  Jesus  was  speaking  to  the  mul- 
titudes as  well  as  to  His  disciples,  He  said,  "  Be  ye 
not  called  rabbi ;  for  one  is  your  teacher,  and  all  ye 
are  brothers."      And  the  next  verse  suggests  why  they 


134  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

all  are  brothers ;    it  is  because  God  is   their   common 
father. 

In  view  of  these  passages,  then,  we  must  say  that 
Jesus  did  not  limit  the  word  brother  to  the  fellow- 
believer,  but  used  it  also  in  a  broad  sense,  as  describ- 
ing the  fellow-man.1 

The  word  neighbor  which  Jesus  uses  in  His  summa- 
tion of  Law  and  prophets,  and  which  He  defines  in 
the  parable  of  the  Merciful  Samaritan,  corresponds 
to  brother  in  its  comprehensive  sense  (Mk.  xii.  31  ; 
Lk.  x.  29-37).  The  first  commandment  is  to  love  God, 
the  second  to  love  the  neighbor.  Now  it  is  plain  that 
Jesus  did  not  mean  by  neighbor,  in  this  passage,  the 
one  who  is  our  friend,  a  sense  which  the  word  some- 
times has  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  which  it  had 
among  the  Jews  of  Jesus'  time  (Mt.  v.  43).  For  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  He  teaches  that  His  dis- 
ciples should  love  their  enemies  as  well  as  their 
friends,  that  is,  they  should  love  all  men  (Mt.  v.  44). 
When,  therefore,  He  says  that  one  of  the  two  com- 
mandments on  which  the  Law  and  the  prophets  hinge 
is  equal  love  of  the  neighbor,  that  word  must  be  taken 
in  the  sense  of  one  who  is  near  us,  whether  friend 
or  bitterest  enemy.  The  Samaritan  illustrated  this 
second  commandment.  He  loved  his  neighbor  as 
himself  ;  and    his    neighbor  was    not  a  Samaritan,  but 

1  Comp.  Wenclt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  269-271. 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  135 

a  Jew,  and  so  presumably  an  enemy,  for  Jews  and 
Samaritans  were  mutually  hostile  toward  each  other 
(Jn.  iv.  9).  The  priest  and  Levite  violated  this  same 
commandment.  Their  conception  of  neighbor  was  so 
narrow  that  it  did  not  include  the  man  whom  the 
robbers  had  left  half  dead,  though  he  was  their  coun- 
tryman, and  near  to  them  in  place,  and  in  desperate 
need  of  their  help. 

The  specific  thoughts  in  Jesus'  teaching  on  the  right- 
eous man's  relation  to  men  are  the  natural  correlates 
of  brotherhood,  and  flow  like  that  from  the 

c.  The 

fatherhood    of   God.      Thus   the    disciple   is  correlates  of 

7         .  .  .11  r        1  •  i         ,,       brotherhood. 

to  love  his  neighbor,  for  hate  is  unbrotherly 
and  not  in  accord  with  his  sonship  to  a  heavenly  Father. 
He  is  to  love  his  neighbor  as  Jiimself,  for  his  neighbor 
is  his  brother  (Mt.  vii.  12).  He  is  to  love  his  brother, 
though  this  brother  be  in  turn  unbrotherly.  To  love 
only  those  who  love  us  is  to  rise  no  higher  than  the 
plane  on  which  the  publicans  and  Gentiles  stand, 
and  on  which  the  Jewish  teachers  also  stood  (Mt.  v. 
46-47;  Lk.  xiv.  12-14;  xyi-  l9S1)-  To  love  those 
who  do  not  love  us  is  to  be  perfect  as  the  heavenly 
Father  is  perfect  (Mt.  v.  48). 

But  while  the  disciples  are  enjoined  to  love  their 
enemies,  there  is  a  limit  to  the  expression  of  this  love. 
Jesus  tells  His  disciples  not  to  give  that  which  is  holy 
to  dogs,  nor  cast  their  pearls  before  swine  (Mt.  vii.  6). 


136  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

The  twelve  disciples  were  to  shake  off  the  dust  of  their 
feet  against  any  place  which  would  not  receive  their 
testimony  (Mt.  x.  14).  The  brother  who  has  sinned 
and  who  refuses  to  be  reconciled  to  the  one  whom  he 
has  wronged,  is  to  be  counted  unworthy  of  further 
fellowship.  But  this  does  not  mean  that  love  is  ever 
to  give  place  to  hate.  This  is  plainly  inconsistent 
with  a  brotherhood  which  rests  on  the  fatherhood  of 
God.  In  all  these  cases  of  broken  fellowship,  love 
is  still  to  remain  the  controlling  principle ;  only  for 
the  present  it  has  reached  the  limit  of  its  manifes- 
tation. 

Again,  brotherhood  implies  service.  The  divine 
fatherhood  which  gives  rise  to  this  brotherhood  is  a 
fatherhood  of  service.  Hence  the  sons  of  God,  the 
members  of  Christ's  kingdom,  seek  to  do  to  others  what 
they  wish  others  to  do  for  them,  that  is,  seek  to  do 
them  good  (Mt.  vii.  12).  He  who  loves  his  neighbor 
as  himself  serves  him  as  he  would  be  served  by  him. 
He  does  not  do  this  in  order  that  he  may  himself  be 
served  in  return.  This  motive  would  give  us  an  earthly 
society  of  publicans  and  Gentiles,  and  not  a  kingdom 
of  God  (Mt.  v.  46-48).  In  this  kingdom,  where  all  are 
brothers,  one  cannot  strive  to  have  the  preeminence 
over  another,  and  to  rule  his  brother  (Mt.  xxiii.  8-10). 
The  ambition  which  Jesus  recognized  as  lawful  among 
His  disciples  was  the  ambition  to  be  the  most  helpful 


THE   LIFE   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN 


137 


(Mk.  x.  35).  According  as  the  disciples  have  this  spirit 
of  service,  they  will  be  at  peace  among  themselves,  and 
not  be  asking  which  of  them  is  greatest  (Mk.  ix.  50). 

Furthermore,  the  principle  of  brotherhood  implies  prac- 
tical tolerance.  The  unknown  man  who  cast  out  demons 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  (Mk.  ix.  38-41),  and  whom  the 
disciples  sought  to  restrain  from  work  because  he  did  not 
follow  them,  must  not  be  disturbed.  If  he  had  faith 
enough  to  do  good  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  the  disciples 
should  let  him  alone.  They  should  account  the  work 
that  he  is  doing  as  a  service  to  them  ;  and  though 
it  were  no  more  than  giving  a  cup  of  water,  they  may 
be  assured  that  even  this  service  will  not  fail  of  a 
reward. 

This  brotherly  tolerance  must  be  maintained  at  any 
cost.  Intolerance  might  cause  a  disciple  to  fall  away, 
a  "little  one"  like  the  unnamed  man  who  was  casting 
out  demons  in  the  name  of  Jesus  (Mk.  ix.  42).  And 
it  were  better  for  a  man  to  have  a  great  millstone 
hanged  about  his  neck  and  to  be  cast  into  the  sea,  than 
to  alienate  from  Jesus  any  trusting  soul.  This  statement 
reflects  at  once  the  lofty  estimate  which  Jesus  put 
upon  the  value  of  the  soul  (comp.  Mk.  viii.  36)  and  also 
His  conviction  that  a  soul's  highest  good  consists  in 
a  right  attitude  toward  Him. 

Once  more,  the  duty  of  forgiveness,  which  Jesus 
refers  to  several  times,  as  though  to  suggest  that  the 


138  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

disciples  would  have  abundant  opportunity  to  exercise 
it,  is  involved  in  the  second  great  commandment  of 
love  for  the  neighbor,  and  is  a  necessary  correlate  of 
brotherhood.  If  the  Father  in  heaven  has  forgiven  the 
disciple  "  ten  thousand  talents,"  that  disciple  must  be 
ready  to  forgive  a  fellow-disciple  the  paltry  sum  of  a 
"  hundred  shillings"  (Mt.  xviii.  23-35).  The  fatherli- 
ness  of  God  toward  the  disciple  is  an  ample  ground 
why  the  disciple  should  exercise  unlimited  forgiveness 
toward  his  brother. 

Thus,  in  the  Synoptic  teaching  of  Jesus,  the  relation 
of  His  disciples  to  each  other  and  to  men  in  general 
is  controlled  by  the  facts  of  fatherhood  and  brother- 
hood. They  are  sons  of  the  Father  in  heaven, 
therefore  brothers  to  all  of  whom  He  is  father. 
Fatherhood  draws  them  to  God,  and  is  the  life-princi- 
ple in  their  religion  ;  brotherhood  draws  them  to  each 
other,  and  is  the  life-principle  in  their  morality.  Re- 
ligion is  perfected  when  man  is  an  ideal  son  of  the 
heavenly  Father;  morality  is  perfected  when  man  is  an 
ideal  brother  to  his  fellow-men.  And  these  two  ideals 
are  inseparable. 

It  is  with  the  inner  fact  of  brotherliness,  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  spirit  of  brotherhood,  that  Jesus  is  concerned. 
He  did  not  discuss  the  changes  which  this  principle 
would  bring  to  the  Family  or  to  the  State.  His  teach- 
ins:  did  not  include  these  institutions  except  as  it  did  so 


THE   LIFE  CF  THE  KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  139 

by  implication.1  His  direct  teaching  on  these  subjects 
—  a  single  brief  passage  on  each  —  was  called  out  by 
questions,  and  was  not  spontaneous,  not  a  part  of  the 
message  which  He  felt  Himself  divinely  sent  to  pro- 
claim to  the  world.  It  is  safe  then  to  assume  that  He 
had  no  ideal  for  the  Family  and  no  ideal  for  the  State 
which  would  not  be  essentially  realized  with  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  filial  spirit  toward  God  and  the  brotherly 
spirit  toward  men. 

This  spirit  of  filial  and  brotherly  love  would  mani- 
festly sweep  away  the  marriage  legislation  which  made 
concessions  to  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts,  and  that  is 
exactly  what  Jesus  did  when  the  question  of  divorce 
was  put  to  Him  by  the  Pharisees  (Mk.  x.  5  ;  Mt.  xix. 
8).  He  went  back  to  the  primal  ideal  of  marriage, 
the  indissoluble  union  of  one  man  and  one  woman. 
This  is  of  God,  a  divine  order  which  man  cannot  an- 
nul (Mk.  x.  9).  If  either  husband  or  wife  divorce  the 
other  and  marry  again,  the  one  thus  acting  commits 
the  sin  of  adultery  against  the  other  (Mk.  x.  n),  be- 
cause God  has  not  released  them  from  their  mutual 
vows.  He  never  does  release  them,  according  to 
Jesus,  unless  one  party  to  the  union  is  unfaithful  (Mt. 
xix.  9).     In  that  case  the  union  is  destroyed,  and  the 

1  For  an  admirable  discussion  of  what  is  implied  in  the  incidental 
utterances  of  Jesus  on  these  subjects,  see  Shailer  Mathews,  The  Social 
Teaching  of  Jesus. 


140  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

innocent  party  is  as  free  as  though  the  union  had  never 
existed. 

Thus  Jesus  abolished,  as  imperfect,  the  legislation 
regarding  divorce  which  was  warped  by  the  hardness 
of  man's  heart.  The  ideal  which  He  sets  up  in  its 
place  is  an  ideal  which  is  in  harmony  with  His  funda- 
mental conception  of  a  man's  true  relation  to  God 
and  to  his  fellow-men.  It  is  the  ideal  of  the  spirit  of 
religious  love  applied  to  the  foundation  of  the  family. 
The  presumption  is  that  Jesus  would  have  left  men 
to  reach  this  ideal  as  they  realized  His  spirit,  if  He 
had  not  been  challenged  by  the  specific  question  on 
divorce ;  and  the  history  of  divorce  legislation  in  nom- 
inally Christian  nations  shows  that  it  is  wholly  un- 
availing to  have  this  ideal  of  Jesus  when  His  spirit  is 
not  realized. 

Again,  the  spirit  of  filial  and  brotherly  love  which 
Jesus  taught  and  which  He  manifested  in  His  life 
involves  the  equality  of  woman  with  man,  as  does 
His  conception  of  marriage  which  has  just  been  con- 
sidered ;  but  Jesus  left  this  equality  to  be  evolved 
with  the  development  of  the  Christian  spirit.  He  did 
not  make  it  a  subject  of  teaching,  though  His  own 
personal  treatment  of  women  must  have  left  an  in- 
effaceable impression  upon  His  disciples.  His  regard 
for  them  was  in  fundamental  contrast  with  that  of 
the    Jewish   teachers  (Jn.  iv.   27),  for  it  was    pervaded 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  141 

by    the    same    high    respect    which    He    showed    for 
men. 

Finally,  Jesus  did  not  discuss  the  relation  of  His 
disciples  to  the  State,  or  what  sort  of  political  govern- 
ment they  should  aim  to  secure.  His  only  direct  utter- 
ance on  the  subject  was  called  out  by  the  plot  of 
the  Pharisees  and  Herodians  to  entrap  Him  in  speech 
(Mk.  xii.  13-17;  Mt.  xxii.  15-22;  Lk.  xx.  20-26),  and 
went  no  further  than  the  general  principle  that  the 
government  of  God  and  the  government  of  Caesar 
may  coexist.  His  own  life  affirmed  the  same  truth, 
for  He  was  subject  to  earthly  rulers  and  also  to  God. 
Surely  Jesus  "  stands  committed  to  no  political  teach- 
ing," as  He  stands  committed  to  no  ecclesiastical  or 
social  theory.  It  is  life,  not  the  countless  manifesta- 
tions of  life,  with  which  He  is  concerned.  He  gives 
new  wine,  and  therewith  the  caution  that  it  be  put 
into  new  wine-skins ;  but  He  leaves  it  to  His  disciples 
to  fashion  these  new  wine-skins  as  shall  seem  best 
to  them. 

The  fourth  Gospel  is  almost    silent  on   the   subject 
under  discussion, — the  righteous  man's  relation  to  his 
fellow-men ;    yet   it  contains    one   important 
word  of  Jesus,  and  that  is  the  new  command-  Johannean 

teaching. 

ment  which  He  gave  to  His  disciples  on  the 

evening  before  His  death.      The  essential  thought  of 

this  is  presented,  first,  in  the  symbolic   washing  of  the 


142  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

disciples'  feet.  The  evangelist  regarded  this  as  the 
uttermost  proof  of  the  love  of  Jesus  for  His  disciples 
(Jn.  xiii.  i).  Jesus  plainly  intended  that  the  act 
should  teach  the  disciples  the  duty  of  loving  one 
another,  for  He  said,  "I  have  given  you  an  example 
that  ye  also  should  do  as  I  have  done  to  you " 
(Jn.  xiii.  15).  "If  I,  the  Lord  and  the  Master,  have 
washed  your  feet,  ye  also  ought  to  wash  one  another's 
feet"  (Jn.  xiii.  14).  This  is  closely  related  to  the 
Synoptic  saying  of  Jesus,  "The  Son  of  man  came 
not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to 
give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  (Mk.  x.  45),  but  it  is 
not  identical  with  that  statement.  Both  have  to  do 
with  service  as  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  new 
life,  and  in  both  the  law  for  the  disciples  is  the  example 
of  Jesus.  But  the  symbolic  washing  of  the  disciples' 
feet  is  a  more  intense  statement  of  the  law  of  service 
than  that  of  the  Synoptists.  It  was  an  actual  service, 
and  not  the  statement  of  a  principle ;  and  then  it  was 
a  menial  service.  It  is  just  at  this  point  that  the  "new 
commandment"  in  John  has  its  peculiar  significance. 
It  was  a  commandment  of  mutual  love  and  mutual 
love  of  a  particular  sort.  Its  standard  was  to  be  "  even 
as  I  have  loved  you"  (Jn.  xiii.  34;  xv.  12).  The 
commandment  to  cultivate  love  was  not  new  ;  it  was  a 
part  of  the  Old  Testament  teaching.  The  newness  of 
Jesus'  commandment  to  His  disciples   must  be    found 


THE   LIFE  OF  THE  KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN  143 

therefore  in  the  standard  of  love.  This  was  indeed 
new.  There  had  been  no  Jesus  before  ;  no  such  mani- 
festation of  love  as  His.  There  had  been  no  life  which 
commended  unselfish  love  and  made  it  the  very  heart 
of  righteousness.  Jesus'  love  of  men  was  based  on  His 
sense  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  and  as  this  was  new, 
the  love  also  was  new.  Therefore  the  commandment 
to  love  as  He  had  loved  might  be  called  a  new  com- 
mandment. 

We  can  hardly  say  that  the  peculiarity  of  Jesus'  love 
was  this,  that  He  loved  others  better  than  Himself ; 
while  the  Law  required  that  one  should  love  the  neigh- 
bor as  one's  self.  There  had  been  persons  before 
Jesus  who  loved  others  better  than  themselves;  many 
a  mother  who  had  thus  loved  her  child ;  and  many  a 
patriot  who  had  thus  loved  his  people  and  land.  The 
standard  of  Jesus  is  broader  than  this,  and  also  more 
practical.  The  love  of  Jesus  was  a  purely  religious 
love.  Its  impulse  was  from  God.  He  loved  others 
as  He  did  because  conscious  of  the  love  of  God  for 
Himself  and  for  them.  This  love,  then,  was  a  deep 
principle  in  His  soul,  and  was  unselfish.  Therefore 
when  He  urged  His  disciples  to  love  even  as  He  had 
loved  them,  He  urged  them  to  have  a  love  which 
springs  from  a  sense  of  God's  love,  and  which  should 
control  the  entire  life  from  within.  This  was  what  He 
had.      And   the    commandment  to  love  in  this   way   is 


144  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

practical,  for  it  calls  for  a  love  which  wells  up  naturally 
in  the  soul,  when  the  soul  knows  God  and  in  propor- 
tion as  it  knows  Him.  And  as  every  soul  can  have 
this  knowledge,  so  every  soul  can   have  this  love. 

It  is  peculiar  to  the  fourth  Gospel  that  this  love  is 
made  the  badge  of  discipleship.  This  living  vital 
principle,  this  practical  manifestation  of  the  spirit  of 
Jesus,  and  nothing  else,  shows  that  they  belong  to 
Him.  It  is  significant,  as  has  been  pointed  out,1  that 
while  Jesus,  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  lays  great  stress 
upon  the  knozvledge  of  God,  He  yet  did  not  make  a 
distinct  doctrine  of  God,  or  a  definite  cidtus,  the  char- 
acteristic mark  of  His  disciples,  but  rather  their 
mutual  love  for  each  other.  And  yet  the  evangelist 
is  not  inconsistent  in  first  making  eternal  life  depend 
upon  a  certain  knowledge  of  God  and  Christ,  and  then 
making  love  the  sole  mark  of  discipleship,  for  this 
knowledge  is  gained  through  love,  and  this  love  is 
rooted  in  knowledge. 

1  See  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  290-291. 


CHAPTER    IV 

The   Outward    Development   of   the    Kingdom   of 
Heaven 

Nothing  is  so  noticeable  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in 
regard  to  the  future  of  His  cause  as  the  vast  breadth  of 
His  thought  combined  with  the  absolute  sim-  L  0rganiza- 
plicity  of  the  means  for  the  attainment  of  His  tlon- 
end.    When  he  had  but  a  handful  of  disciples,  and  they 
very  imperfect,  He  declared  that  they  were  the  salt  and 
the  light,  not  of  Galilee  or  Palestine,  but  of  the  world 
(Mt.  v.    13-14);  and  at  the  end  of  His  brief  ministry 
He  sent  His  "  little  flock  "  forth  to  disciple  all  nations 
(Mt.  xxviii.   19).     What  had  been  dimly  anticipated  by 
prophets  of  the   Old  Testament  regarding  the  sweep 
of  the   Messiah's  influence,   is  the  clear  and  constant 
thought  of  Jesus.     While  He  gives  Himself  chiefly  to 
a  little  band  of  disciples,  and  thinks  of  His  own  per- 
sonal mission  as  being  in  an  eminent  sense  to  the  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  it  is  yet  plain  that  from 
the  beginning  of  His  public  career  He  believed  that 
He  was  instituting  a  work  which  was   to  be  as   wide 
as  humanity.     And   yet    He   sent    forth    His  disciples 

L  H5 


146  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

with  no  outward  organization  whatever.  In  the  first 
part  of  the  Galilean  ministry  Jesus  appointed  twelve 
men  to  preach  and  to  heal,  and  they  were  associated 
with  Him  later;  but  He  neither  organized  them  among 
themselves,  nor  gave  them  any  official  standing  with 
reference  to  other  believers.  The  only  fact  that  seems 
for  a  moment  to  suggest  an  inner  organization  is  the 
word  to  Peter  at  Caesarea  Philippi : 1  "  Thou  art  Pctros 
and  upon  this  petra  I  will  build  my  church,  and  the 
gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will 
give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall 
be  loosed  in  heaven "  (Mt.  xvi.  18).  But  no  greater 
misinterpretation  of  the  thought  of  Jesus  has  ever  been 
committed  than  the  view  that  Peter  was  made  primate 
of  the  apostles  by  these  words,  and  that  this  primacy 
was  to  be  perpetuated  by  means  of  apostolic  succes- 
sion. This  view  did  not  originate  in  light  and  cannot 
bear  the  light.  One  fatal  argument  against  it  is  the  fact 
that  Peter's  confession  was  not  the  confession  of  a  new 
faith  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  that  new  faith 
peculiar  to  Peter ; 2  but  it  was  rather  the  confession 
of  allegiance  to  an  old  faith,  which  was  shared  by  the 

1  The  fact  that  Jirlas  seems  to  have  been  the  treasurer  of  the  apostolic 
circle  (Jn.  xii.  6)  belongs  simply  to  the  domestic  economy  of  the  band. 

2  Comp.  Gilbert,  The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  266-269. 


OUTWARD   DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE   KINGDOM  147 

other  apostles  as  well  as  Peter.  Therefore  there  was 
no  ground  for  putting  such  high  and  permanent  honor 
upon  Peter  as  is  implied  in  his  so-called  primacy.  The 
purport  of  Peter's  words  was  not,  I  now  at  last  believe 
that  Thou  art  the  Messiah;  but,  I  still  believe  that  Thou 
art  the  Messiah.  The  crisis  in  Capernaum  had  just 
passed,  and  enthusiasm  for  Jesus  had  turned  into  bitter 
disappointment.  Many  of  His  former  disciples  went 
back  and  henceforth  walked  no  more  with  Him  (Jn. 
vi.  66).  In  this  situation  Jesus  wished  to  find  out  how 
His  twelve  chosen  ones  stood,  and  hence  He  put  the 
test-question  at  Caesarea  Philippi.  They  had  long 
cherished  the  belief,  more  or  less  clear  and  positive, 
that  He  was  the  Messiah.  They  had  accepted  a  com- 
mission from  Him  to  preach  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
and  to  heal  disease,  and  they  had  been  successful  in 
their  work.  They  had  heard  Jesus  claim  to  have 
authority  to  forgive  sin,  and  had  seen  that  claim  sup- 
ported by  miracles.  Of  course  their  belief  in  His 
Messiahship  had  been  very  inadequate,  but  there  had 
been  in  it  a  saving  element  of  increasing  personal 
attachment  to  Jesus,  and  the  great  fact  brought  out 
at  Caesarea  Philippi  was  that,  in  face  of  the  general 
desertion  from  Jesus,  the  apostles  still  clung  to  Him. 
Now  Peter  was  not  alone  in  this  loyalty.  All  had 
believed  in  Jesus ;  all  still  believed  with  the  exception 
of  Judas,  whose  inward  alienation   dates  as  far  back 


148  THE   REVELATION    OF  JESUS 

as  the  critical  day  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum  (Jn. 
vi.  70).  Peter  expressed  the  thought  of  the  others  as 
well  as  his  own ;  and  so  Jesus  charged  all  the  disciples, 
not  simply  Peter,  that  they  should  tell  no  man  that 
He  was  the  Messiah  (Mt.  xvi.  20).  It  is  impossible, 
then,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  all  the  disciples  had  stood 
the  strain  of  the  past  few  days,  and  still  clung  to  the 
person  of  Jesus,  to  suppose  that  He  rewarded  Peter's 
confession  with  a  permanent  primacy  in  the  apostolic 
circle.  The  confession  of  Peter  was  due  rather  to  his 
impulsiveness  than  to  superior  spiritual  insight  or  supe- 
rior courage. 

It  is  necessary  only  to  allude  to  the  other  facts  which 
preclude  the  view  that  Jesus  at  this  time  established 
any  organization  among  His  disciples.  When  the  ques- 
tion arose  among  the  apostles,  shortly  after  the  experi- 
ence at  Csesarea  Philippi,  which  of  them  was  the 
greatest,  Jesus  recognized  no  priority  of  rank  what- 
ever, save  that  which  was  based  on  eminence  in 
serving  others  (Mk.  ix.  35).  Nor  did  Jesus  in  the 
subsequent  days  show  any  special  consideration  for 
Peter,  or  otherwise  intimate  that  he  was  the  head  of 
the  apostles.  He  chose  Peter  to  go  with  Him  to  the 
mount  of  transfiguration,  and  also  into  the  garden  of 
Gethsemane,  but  He  took  James  and  John  as  well 
(Mk.  ix.  2;  xiv.  33).  The  disciple  who  leaned  on  the 
bosom  of  Jesus  at  the  last   supper  was  not   Peter,  but 


OUTWARD    DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE   KINGDOM  149 

John.  The  commission  which  the  risen  Lord  gave 
to  Peter,  to  feed  His  sheep,  was  evidently  occasioned 
by  Peter's  threefold  denial,  and  was  his  restoration 
to  a  common  plane  rather  than  an  elevation  above  that 
plane  (Jn.  xxi.  15-18).  And,  finally,  in  the  apostolic 
age,  no  primacy  was  accorded  to  Peter.  He  was 
prominent  in  the  mother-church  at  Jerusalem,  but  he 
was  only  one  of  the  three  "  pillars,"  and  he  is  not  men- 
tioned first  even  of  these.     James  was  first  (Gal.  ii.  9). 

The  rock  upon  which  Jesus  declared  that  He  would 
build  His  church  was  the  rock  of  personal  loyalty  to 
Him,  of  which  loyalty  Peter  was  the  first  outspoken 
representative.  The  praise  of  this  loyalty  is  not  only 
that  it  furnishes  an  indestructible  foundation  for  the 
Church,  but  also  that  the  men  who  embody  it  hold 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  "bind"  or 
"loose"  with  authority.1  They  and  their  teaching 
are  the  standard  of  moral  and  religious  truth,  as  Jesus 
was  in  His  earthly  life.  They  are  authoritative  teachers 
as  they  are  loyal  to  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus ;  and 
therefore  they  are  said  to  hold  the  keys2  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Men  enter  or  are  refused  entrance 
into  that  kingdom  according  as  they  accept  or  reject 
this  one  essential  truth  of  loyalty  to  Jesus. 

1  See  August  Wiinsche,  Neue  Beitr'dge  zw  Erlauterung  der  Evangelien 
aus  Talmud  und  Midrasch,  pp.  195-197. 

2  The  same  fundamental  thought  otherwise  expressed  in  Jn.  xx.  23. 


150  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

But  again,  as  there  was  no  organization  among  the 
apostles,  so  Jesus  gave  them  no  official  position  with 
reference  to  other  believers.  As  He  sent  them  out 
to  preach  and  heal,  so  later  He  sent  out  seventy  on 
the  same  errand  (Lk.  x.  i).  After  He  rose  from  the 
dead  He  neither  appeared  in  a  special  manner  to  the 
apostles,  nor  gave  them  any  special  and  exclusive 
commission.  The  commission  to  disciple  all  nations 
was  probably  given  not  to  the  apostles  alone,  but  to 
more  than  five  hundred  disciples,  that  is,  to  the  en- 
tire church.1  The  commission  given  in  Jerusalem,  of 
which  Luke  speaks,  was  not  simply  to  the  eleven,  but 
to  the  eleven  and  those  with  them  (Lk.  xxiv.  33).  All 
the  disciples  alike  were  to  be  His  witnesses,  and  upon 
all  alike  was  the  promise  of  the  Father  to  be  sent 
(Lk.  xxiv.  48-49). 

Thus  the  eleven  apostles  had  no  ecclesiastical  posi- 
tion from  the  hands  of  Jesus.  They  had  enjoyed 
special  privileges  with  Him,  and  had  been  specially 
fitted  to  form  the  nucleus  of  the  brotherhood  of  dis- 
ciples ;  but  they  had  no  ecclesiastical  preeminence. 
The  authority  which  they  had  was  such  as  naturally 
belonged  to  their  better  acquaintance  with  the  life  of 
Jesus.     It  was  moral  rather  than  official. 

This  position  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the 
apostles  themselves  did  not  regard  their  office  as  per- 

1  See  Gilbert,  The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  398-399. 


OUTWARD   DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE   KINGDOM         15 1 

manent.  When  they  appointed  a  man  to  take  the 
place  of  Judas,  the  one  necessary  condition  was  that 
he  should  have  personal  knowledge  of  the  entire 
ministry  of  Jesus,  and  should  be  a  witness  of  His 
resurrection  (Acts  i.  21-22).  It  is  plain,  therefore, 
that  they  did  not  think  of  the  apostolate  as  continu- 
ing longer  than  the  generation  which  had  witnessed 
the  resurrection. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  Jesus  left  the  matter  of 
the  outward  organization  of  His  followers  absolutely 
untouched,  and  hence  He  cannot  have  regarded  it  as 
a  matter  of  essential  importance.  Jesus  was  the 
founder  of  the  Church  as  a  spiritual  agency  in  the 
world,  but  no  ecclesiastical  organization  or  form  of 
government  can  ever  appeal  to  a  word  of  His  for 
support.  He  may  have  anticipated  that  His  disciples, 
in  time  to  come,  would  have  some  sort  of  organiza- 
tion ;  but  if  so,  He  was  content  to  leave  this  to  be 
developed  according  to  the  needs  that  might  arise. 

Jesus  expected  that  His  kingdom  would  be  extended 
by  personal   witnessing.       He    devised   no   machinery. 
He  wrote  no  book  or  tract  to   be  put  into  n  The 
the  hands  of  His  disciples.     He  gave  them  m<f h°d  °[h 

r  °  extending  the 

no    miraculous   power.      He  promised  them  kingdom. 
the  aid  of   the   Holy   Spirit  in  their  witnessing,   when 
they  should  be   brought  before   governors   and   kings 
(Mk.  xiii.    11);  but  in   His  final    commission    He    said 


152  THE    REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

nothing  of  power  to  heal  and  cast  out  demons.  This 
had  been  part  of  their  equipment  on  their  early  tour 
in  Galilee,  even  as  Jesus  Himself  wrought  miracles 
to  confirm  His  claim  ;  but  as  the  working  of  miracles 
was  incidental  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  so  it  was  a 
temporary  phenomenon  in  the  work  of  the  disciples. 
When  His  claim  had  been  eternally  established  by 
the  resurrection  from  the  dead  and  by  the  coming  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  at  Pentecost,  miracles  were 
no  longer  needed,  and  soon  ceased  altogether. 

The  disciples  were  to  rely  upon  purely  spiritual 
and  rational  means  for  the  accomplishment  of  their 
work.  They  were  to  bear  witness  of  what  they  had 
seen  and  heard.  It  was  thus  that  Jesus  had  won 
them,  and  thus  they  were  to  win  others.  Jesus  had 
come  to  them  personally,  and  had  testified  what  He 
knew  of  the  Father.  By  His  life  and  words  He  had 
convinced  them  that  He  was  their  divinely  appointed 
helper,  the  Messiah  of  God.  And  as  He  had  been 
sent  to  them,  so  He  sent  them  to  others  (Jn.  xvii.  18). 

This  is  the  one  great  law  for  the  development  of 
Christ's  kingdom  which  is  found  in  the  record  of 
His  teaching.  He  depended  upon  personal  witness 
and  personal  contact.  He  did  not  say  that  the 
Gospel,  either  spoken  or  written,  was  the  salt  of  the 
earth  ;  nor  did  He  say  that  of  any  organization.  He 
said  it  of   the    men  who    had    accepted    Him.      It  was 


OUTWARD   DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE   KINGDOM         153 

they  who  were  to  preserve  the  earth   from  corruption 
and  make  it  acceptable  to  God. 

Their  verbal  witnessing  is  summed  up  by  Jesus  as 
confessing  Him  before  men  (Mt.  x.  32).  That  is  to 
be  the  text  of  all  their  preaching.  It  is  only  as  they 
are  loyal  to  this  truth  that  He  gives  them  authority 
to  "bind"  and  "  loose "  (Mt.  xvi.  19).  They  will 
call  men  to  repentance,  but  they  will  do  it  for  the 
sole  purpose  that  men  may  thereby  enter  into  the 
kingdom  and  fellowship  of  Jesus  (Mk.  i.  15).  They 
are  to  invite  men  to  the  feast  of  the  Gospel,  as  Jesus 
had  done  (Mt.  xxii.  1-14),  and  are  to  do  it  as  moved 
by  their  own  experience  of  the  power  and  grace  of 
that  Gospel.  Jesus  in  His  preaching  made  known 
what  He  had  experienced  of  the  Father  (Mt.  xi.  27): 
His  disciples  were  to  make  known  what  they  had 
experienced  of  the  Father  through  Jesus.  He  spoke 
to  them  in  secret  of  the  Father  and  His  kingdom : 
this  word  they  were  to  proclaim  from  the  housetops, 
but  only  as  it  came  from  their  own  hearts  (Mt.  x.  27). 
He  had  no  abstract  message  for  humanity,  and  can- 
not have  expected  that  His  followers  would  have  any. 
They  were  to  "fish"  for  men,  as  He  had  done,  with 
the  bait  of  what  they  had  seen  and  heard  and  expe- 
rienced. And  because  their  message,  which  was  to 
transform  men,  was  to  come  out  of  their  own  heart's 
experience,  it  is  natural   that  Jesus   laid   stress   upon 


154  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

the  witness  in  life  as  well  as  in  words.  The  ''light" 
that  shines  to  the  glory  of  the  heavenly  Father  is  the 
new  personality  itself :  ye  are  the  light  of  the  world 
(Mt.  v.  14).  It  must  and  will  express  itself  in  "good 
works,"  in  ministering  and  sacrificing  itself  even  as 
the  Son  of  man  ministered  and  gave  His  life  (Mk.  x. 
43-45;   Mt.  xxv.  40). 

There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  Jesus  regarded 
the  life-witness  of  His  disciples  as  less  important  in 
their  work  of  extending  the  kingdom  of  heaven  than 
the  witness  of  His  own  life  had  been  in  His  work. 
In  harmony  with  all  that  Jesus  said  about  the  bear- 
ing of  witness  in  word  and  life  is  the  fact  that  He 
expected  every  follower  to  take  part  in  extending  His 
kingdom.  He  did  not  institute  a  special  order  of 
men  to  do  this  work.  Bearing  witness  in  word  and 
in  life  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah  has  a  basis  in  each 
disciple's  experience,  and  is  part  of  each  disciple's 
obligation.  Jesus  ordained  all  His  disciples  to  the 
same  service,  and  equipped  them  all  with  the  same 
power.     He  included  all  in   His   farewell  commission. 

The  spirit  in  which  the  disciples  are  to  bear  wit- 
ness for  the  extension  of  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  is 
the  spirit  of  gentleness  and  peace.  The  disciples  are 
not  to  resist  him  that  is  evil,  and  smite  when  they 
are  smitten  (Mt.  v.  39).  Meekness  turns  the  left 
cheek   when   the   right    is    smitten;    gives    the    cloke 


OUTWARD    DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE   KINGDOM  155 

when  the  coat  has  been  taken,  and  goes  two  miles 
when  forced  to  go  one.  The  disciples  are  to  be 
harmless  as  doves  (Mt  x.  16).  This  language  is 
plainly  hyperbolical,  and  must  not  be  taken  in  a 
coldly  literal  sense.  It  sets  forth  vividly  the  duty 
of  gentleness.  At  the  same  time  Jesus  expected 
His  disciples  to  have  proper  self-respect  and  to  be 
courageous.  When  He  was  smitten  before  Annas,  He 
did  not  turn  the  other  cheek  in  a  literal  sense,  but 
rebuked  the  officer  who  had  struck  Him  (Jn.  xviii. 
22-23).  The  disciples  are  to  be  gentle,  but  they  are 
also  to  be  courageous  and  fear  no  man  (Mt.  x. 
26,  28  ;  Lk.  x.  19).  They  are  on  their  Father's  busi- 
ness, and  He  will  care  for  them. 

This  extension  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  gentle 
witness-bearing,  like  that  of  Jesus,  is  in  strongest 
contrast  with  the  popular  view  of  that  day  in  regard 
to  the  establishment  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.1  Ac- 
cording to  this  view,  the  Messiah  Himself  was  to  set  up 
the  kingdom,  destroying  the  enemies  by  the  word  of 
His  mouth.  It  was  to  be  done  suddenly  and  miracu- 
lously, and  the  Jewish  people  would  have  nothing  to 
do  but  to  stand  still  and  see  their  great  deliver- 
ance accomplished.  This  outward  miraculous  method 
perhaps  suited  the  conception  of  an  earthly,  political 
kingdom,  as  well  as  the  method  of  Jesus  suited  the 
conception  of  a  spiritual  and  heavenly  kingdom. 

1  See  pp.  5O— 01 . 


156  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

jesus  did  not  expect  that  His  kingdom  would  be 
extended  without  many  and  serious  hinderances.  He 
in.  The  nad  met  with  an  increasing  opposition  from 
^TnThe011'  tne  very  beginning  of  His  ministry,  and  He 
Synoptists.  anticipated  the  same  sort  of  opposition  for 
His  disciples.  If  men  had  called  the  master  of  the 
house  Beelzebub,  much  more  would  they  apply  this 
epithet  to  the  members  of  his  household  (Mt.  x.  25). 
This  opposition  was  felt  to  be  inevitable  from  the 
very  nature  of  Christ's  work.  He  had  come  to  send  a 
sword  on  earth,  not  peace  (Mt.  x.  34).  He  had  come 
to  set  a  man  at  variance  against  his  father,  and  the 
daughter  against  her  mother,  and  the  daughter-in-law 
against  her  mother-in-law  (Mt.  x.  35-36).  His  claim 
to  Messiahship  was  fundamental,  and  men.  must 
accept  it  or  reject  it,  and  so  be  sharply  divided  on  a 
supreme  issue.  Jesus  taught  His  disciples  to  expect 
hostility,  and  said  it  would  be  an  evil  day  when  all 
men  should  speak  well  of  them  (Lk.  vi.  26).  That 
was  the  way  the  false  prophets  were  treated  in  the 
olden  time,  but  the  true  prophets  met  with  persecu- 
tion. Jesus  regarded  a  like  fate  for  His  followers  as 
so  certain,  and  as  such  a  constant  part  of  their  experi- 
ence, that  He  spoke  a  beatitude  for  those  who  should 
endure  this  opposition  for  His  sake  (Mt.  v.   10-12). 

Jesus  drew  a  dark  picture  of  the  opposition  which 
His    disciples   must   meet.     They    would    be    scourged 


OUTWARD   DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE   KINGDOM  157 

in  synagogues ;  they  would  be  brought  as  criminals 
before  governors  and  kings ;  brother  would  deliver 
brother  to  death,  and  a  father  his  child.  The  dis- 
ciples would  be  hated  of  all  men  for  the  sake  of 
Christ ;  and  as  the  bitterest  drop  in  the  cup  of  suffer- 
ing, they  who  persecuted  them  unto  the  death  would 
think  that  they  were  rendering  service  to  God  (Mt.  x. 
17-23;  Mk.  xiii.  9-13).  This  language  was  meant  to 
prepare  the  disciples  for  the  worst,  but  Jesus  did  not 
expect  them  to  take  it  all  literally.  They  would  not 
be  hated  of  all  men  ;  some  were  to  receive  them  with 
joy.  They  would  find  sons  of  peace  in  some  houses 
(Lk.  x.  6),  and  their  word  would  fall  into  some  good 
soil  (Mt.  xiii.  8).  But  Jesus  would  not  have  the  dis- 
ciples underestimate  the  strength  or  the  bitterness 
of  the  hostility  to  which  they  were  to  be  exposed. 
They  must  be  ready  to  be  as  their  Master  even -in  the 
outward  fate  which  befell  Him. 

The  opposition  which  Jesus  foresaw  was  not  to  come 
wholly  from  His  open  enemies.  The  disciples  would 
have  to  meet  false  prophets,  who,  under  sheep's  cloth- 
ing, have  a  wolf's  heart  (Mt.  vii.  15).  These  will  do 
signs  and  wonders,  and  unless  the  disciples  take  heed, 
they  will  be  led  astray  by  them  (Mk.  xiii.  22-23).  This 
inner  opposition  is  still  broader  than  that  of  false  proph- 
ets. There  are  tares  mingled  with  the  wheat,  false  dis- 
ciples among  the   genuine   (Mt.  xiii.  24-30),  and   this 


158  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

fact  inevitably  adds  to  the  temptations  of  the  disciples 
and  hampers  their  work.  Jesus  did  not  anticipate  that 
these  forms  of  opposition  would  cease  until  the  con- 
summation of  His  kingdom  (Mt.  xiii.  37-43,  47S0)- 

It  is  plain  from  the  words  of  Jesus,  which  have  al- 
ready been  cited  in  this  Chapter,  that  He  thought  of 
the  opposition  to  the  development  of  His  kingdom 
in  the  world  as  proceeding  wholly  from  men.  What- 
ever He  believed  in  regard  to  Satan  and  other  evil 
spirits,  He  thought  of  men  as  the  only  immediate  agents 
in  the  opposition,  and  as  being  always  responsible  for 
their  deeds.  He  refers  now  and  again  to  an  invisible 
power  which  is  opposed  to  God,  but  He  gave  His  dis- 
ciples nothing  like  a  definite  doctrine  in  regard  to  this 
power  (Mt.  vi.  13;  Lk.  x.  18;  xxii.  31).  His  allusions 
to  Satan  are  rare,  as  are  also  His  references  to  good 
angels — a  fact  which  is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  elab- 
orate Jewish  doctrine  of  good  and  bad  spirits  which 
come  between  men  and  God.  Again,  Jesus'  allusions 
to  Satan  are  almost  entirely  in  passages  which  are 
highly  figurative  and  poetical,  and  thus  His  usage  is 
in  line  with  the  noteworthy  circumstance  that  the  two 
books  of  the  Bible  which  have  most  to  say  about  Satan 
are  poetical  books,  —  Job  and  Revelation.  The  only 
striking  exception  to  this  usage  is  the  petition  in  the 
model  for  prayer,  "Deliver  us  from  the  evil  one;" 
but  these  words  are  not   found  in  the  shorter  version 


OUTWARD    DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE   KINGDOM         1 59 

of  the  prayer  in  Luke;1  and  it  is  possible  that  "the 
evil  one"  is  hardly  more  than  a  concrete  equivalent 
of  the  word  temptation. 

Jesus  usually  speaks  as  though  believing  in  the  ex- 
istence of  a  personal  Satan,  even  as  the  Gospels  rep- 
resent Him  as  believing  in  the  existence  of  personal 
demons;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  passages 
in  which  Satan  seems  to  be  the  name  of  impersonal 
evil  tendencies  or  ideas.  Thus  in  the  story  of  the 
temptation,  the  proposal  of  Satan  to  give  to  Jesus 
all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  may  be  simply  a  dra- 
matic expression  of  the  popular  belief  that  the  Jewish 
Messiah  was  indeed  to  rule  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world.  Again,  it  is  plainly  impossible  to  take  liter- 
ally the  statements  that  the  devil  set  Jesus  on  a  pin- 
nacle of  the  temple,  and  the  devil  brought  Him  to 
the  top  of  an  exceeding  high  mountain  and  showed 
Him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  in  an  instant.  It 
was  only  in  thought  that  Jesus  stood  on  the  pinnacle 
of  the  temple,  and  beheld  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  from  the  top  of  a  mountain.2  He  was  in 
the  wilderness  all  the  forty  days.  But  since  thus  the 
movements  of  Satan  are  part  of  the  drapery  of  the 
thought  and  not  real  historical  actions,  it  lies  near  to 
suppose  that  the  name  itself  is  here  only  a  vivid  con- 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  238-239. 

-  See  Gilbert,  The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  132-134. 


l6o  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

crete  designation  of  all  methods  of  Messianic  work, 
which  Jesus  recognized  as  false.  In  like  manner, 
when  Jesus  addresses  Peter  as  Satan,  this  usage  sug- 
gests that,  in  His  thought,  whatever  was  opposed  to 
God  was  properly  designated  Satan  (Mt.  xvi.  23). 
But  this  point  of  the  personality  or  impersonality 
of  Satan  is  relatively  unimportant  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus.  The  existence  of  tendencies  and  forces  which 
are  hostile  to  God  is  perfectly  manifest ;  and  Jesus, 
in  His  outlook  over  the  work  of  His  disciples  in  the 
extension  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  contemplates 
these  forces  and  tendencies  only  as  embodied  in  men. 
It  is  true  also  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  as  of  the 
Synoptists,  that  the  opposition  which  Jesus  anticipated 
was  to  come  from  men.     Its  references  to 

b.  In  John. 

Satan  differ  somewhat  from  those  of  the 
earlier  Gospels,  yet  this  difference  appears  to  be 
formal.  He  is  spoken  of  as  a  murderer  and  liar 
from  the  beginning  of  history  (Jn.  viii.  44),1  but  this 
statement  probably  does  not  imply  an  independent 
activity  of  Satan.  He  is  called  a  murderer  and  a 
liar  in  view  of  such  facts  as  Cain's  murder  of  Abel 
and  his  subsequent  lie  about  it  (comp.  1  Jn.  hi.  12). 
But  God  held  Cain  responsible  for  those  deeds  (Gen. 

1  The  statement  that  the  devil  has  not  "  stood  "  in  the  truth  seems  to 
mean  that  he  has  not  cherished  it,  and  hence  does  not  suggest  a  fall  from 
a  state  of  holiness. 


OUTWARD   DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE   KINGDOM  i6l 

iv.  1 1- 1 2).  This  conception  of  Satan  as  embodied 
in'  bad  men  is  perfectly  evident  from  the  reference 
to  Judas  (Jn.  xiv.  30).  When  Jesus  anticipated  the 
coming  of  Judas  and  the  Jews  to  seize  Him,  He  said, 
"  The  Prince  of  the  world  cometh ;  "  that  is  to  say, 
Jesus  regarded  Judas  and  the  Jews  as  a  visible  embodi- 
ment of  the  prince  of  the  world,  so  that  when  they 
come,  the  prince  comes.  All  the  other  references  to 
Satan  as  "the  prince  of  the  world"  are  in  connection 
with  the  crucifixion  (Jn.  xii.  31;  xiv.  30;  xvi.  11),  and 
are  to  be  understood  in  the  same  manner  as  that  which 
has  just  been  explained.  Thus  we  see  that,  in  John, 
Satan  is  referred  to  only  where  we  have  the  most  ex- 
treme manifestations  of  human  sin,  and  then  he  is 
represented  as  embodied  in  men,  much  as  though  he 
were  regarded  merely  as  a  personification  of  the 
principle  of  sin.  The  thought  that  his  dominion  ex- 
tends over  the  whole  world  is  the  same  that  we  have 
in  the  account  of  the  temptation,  where  the  devil  offers 
Jesus  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  and  their  glory. 
But  while  Satan  is  represented  both  in  the  Synop- 
tists  and  John  as  the  ruler  of  this  world,  his  status 
is  not  now  what  it  once  was.  Jesus  overcame  him 
(Mt.  iv.  1 — 1 1 ),  and  henceforth  for  Jesus  and  His 
disciples  he  is  virtually  a  bound  Satan  (Mk.  iii.  27). 
His  power  is  limited,  as  Jesus  intimated  in  the 
symbolic    word    about    beholding    Satan    as    lightning 


1 6?  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

fallen  from  heaven  (Lk.  x.  18;  comp.  Jn.  xii.  31). 
Whether  Satan  be  thought  of  as  personal  or  imper- 
sonal, his  power  has  been  broken  by  Jesus,  and  his 
opposition  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  can  never  again 
be  what  it  formerly  was.  The  disciples  may  still  be 
persecuted  and  put  to  death,  but  they  can  now  more 
easily  and  perfectly  maintain  their  own  integrity  of 
spirit,  which  after  all  is  the  chief  thing  (Mk.  xiii. 
13;  Jn.  xvi.   33). 

In  the  words  of  Jesus  regarding  the  ultimate  ex- 
tent of  His  kingdom  on  earth  we  hear  at  one  time  a 
iv.  The         note  of   triumph  and    largest    hope ;    and  at 

extent  of  the  anotner  time  an  accent,  not  indeed  of  de- 
kingdom  of     Spair   or    discouragement,  but   an    accent    of 

heaven  on 

earth.  measured   expectation.      The   experience    of 

Jesus  Himself,  judged  by  outward  results,  was  fitted 
to  depress  the  most  hopeful  worker.  He  found  many 
kinds  of  soil  that  brought  no  fruit.  The  people  of 
His  own  town  sought  to  kill  Him  ;  the  people  of  His 
province  rejected  Him ;  and  the  leaders  of  the  reli- 
gion of  Israel  put  Him  to  death  in  the  sacred  name 
of  religion.  He  saw  many  entering  the  broad  way 
which  leads  to  destruction,  and  but  few  finding  the 
narrow  gate.  Many  were  called,  but  few  were 
chosen  (Mt.   xxii.    14). 

Sometimes  the  work  of  the  disciples  seems  to  be 
covered    largely  by  the  shadow  of   this   experience    of 


OUTWARD   DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE   KINGDOM         1 63 

Jesus.  Thus  He  tells  them  that  they  shall  be  hated 
of  all  men  (Mt.  x.  22).  He  likens  the  kingdom  itself 
to  a  field  in  which  there  will  be  tares  among  the 
wheat  until  the  harvest,  and  to  a  net  which  gathers 
both  bad  fish  and  good;  and  if  such  be  the  condi- 
tion within  the  kingdom,  the  condition  outside  must 
be  abundantly  discouraging.  On  a  certain  occasion 
one  asked  Jesus  whether  many  would  be  saved 
(Lk.  xiii.  23-24).  Jesus  in  His  reply  did  not  say 
whether  many  or  few  would  be  saved,  but  said  that 
many  would  strive  to  enter  and  would  not  be  able. 
Again,  in  concluding  a  parable  on  the  duty  of  prayer, 
He  asks  whether  the  Son  of  man,  when  He  comes, 
shall  find  faith  on  earth,  that  is,  whether  the  dis- 
ciples will  still  believe  in  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
(Lk.  xviii.  8).1  In  His  discourse  on  the  last  things 
He  speaks  of  a  future  multiplication  of  iniquity,  and 
says  that  the  love  of  the  many  shall  wax  cold 
(Mt.  xxiv.  12).  At  the  end  of  the  age,  when  the 
Son  of  man  is  seen  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven, 
with  power  and  great  glory,  all  the  tribes  of  the 
earth  shall  mourn  (Mt.  xxiv.  30);  and  this  mourning 
shows  that  the  tribes  of  the  earth  are  not  thought 
of  as  His  disciples,  for  in  that  case  they  would  re- 
joice at  the  coming  of  Jesus. 

These    sayings    all    involve    the    thought    that    the 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  607. 


1 64  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

success  of  the  Gospel  will  be  far  from  complete. 
The  kingdom  on  earth  will  not  be  ideal  either  in 
extent  or  in  quality,  unless  indeed  Jesus  thought  of 
earthly  history  as  extending  beyond  His  paronsia} 

But  the  sombre  outlook  of  these  passages  must  be 
compared  with  the  outlook  of  a  larger  number  of 
passages  whose  spirit  is  one  of  victory.  It  has  been 
remarked  that  Jesus'  conception  of  God  as  the  divine 
Father  made  a  fundamental  optimism  necessary ; 
and  certainly  the  dominant  note  in  His  words  re- 
garding the  future  of  His  kingdom  on  earth  is  opti- 
mistic. Thus  when  Jesus  calls  His  disciples  the  salt 
of  the  earth  and  the  light  of  the  world,  the  language 
implies  that  it  is  their  destiny  to  salt  the  earth  and 
to  light  the  world  (Mt.  v.  13-16).  He  spoke  two 
parables,  whose  central  thought  is  the  greatness  of  the 
final  outcome  of  His  cause.  The  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  likened  to  mustard  seed,  which  of  all  seeds  shows 
the  largest  capacity  for  development  (Mk.  iv.  30-32), 
and  it  is  likened  to  leaven  which  does  not  cease 
working  until  the  entire  mass  in  which  it  is  placed 
has  been  leavened  (Mt.  xiii.  33).  These  parables  re- 
flect a  positive  conviction  that  the-  outcome  of  His 
work  will  be  large  relatively  to  its  beginning,  and 
large  also  relatively  to  the  extent  of  humanity. 

1  See  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Lehrbuch  der  neutestamentlichen  Theologie, 
i.  179. 


OUTWARD   DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE    KINGDOM  165 

Again,  when  speaking  of  the  failure  of  His  cause 
among  the  Jews  of  that  generation,  Jesus  looked  for- 
ward to  a  successful  work  among  the  Gentiles.  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  was  to  be  taken  from  the  Jews 
and  given  to  a  nation  that  would  bring  forth  its 
fruits  (Mt.  xxi.  43).  A  large  outlook  is  found  also 
in  a  saying  of  Jesus  relative  to  his  own  personal 
sacrifice,  that  the  Son  of  man  came  to  give  His  life 
a  ransom  for  many  (Mk.  x.  45);  and  Mt.  xxviii.  19, 
though  in  its  present  form  probably  not  from  Jesus, 
doubtless  rests  upon  some  farewell  word  of  the 
Saviour  which  pointed  to  a  hopeful  work  of  His  dis- 
ciples among  all  nations.  These  passages  justify  the 
statement  that  the  dominant  thought  in  the  words  of 
Jesus  regarding  the  future  of  His  kingdom  on  earth 
is  that  of  development  and  victory. 

So  also  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  brighter  view  of 
the  future  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  the  more 
conspicuous.  There  are  broad  and  dark  shadows  on 
that  future.  Men  would  not  come  to  Jesus  (Jn.  v. 
40),  they  loved  darkness  rather  than  light  (Jn.  hi. 
19);  and  as  it  had  been  in  His  experience,  so  it  was 
to  be  in  the  experience  of  His  disciples.  They  would 
be  hated  and  persecuted  and  put  to  death  (Jn.  xv. 
19,  20;  xvi.  1-2),  for  the  prince  of  this  world  is  the 
deadly  enemy  of  Jesus  (Jn.  xii.  31;  xiv.  30;  xvi. 
11).     Yet  in  spite  of   these  facts  there   is   more    light 


1 66  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

than  shadow  in  the  Johannean  outlook  for  the  future. 
The  kernel  of  grain  that  dies  bears  much  fruit  (Jn. 
xii.  24),  and  Jesus,  when  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  men 
unto  himself  (Jn.  xii.  32).  He  speaks  of  the  Spirit 
as  the  one  who  will  convince  the  world  in  respect  of 
sin  and  of  righteousness  and  of  judgment  (Jn.  xvi. 
8).  He  prays  for  the  unity  of  His  disciples  that  the 
world  may  believe  that  He  is  sent  from  God,  and 
that  the  world  may  know  that  the  Father  loves  the 
disciples  as  He  loved  Jesus  (Jn.  xvii.  21,  23).  This  lan- 
guage is,  of  course,  modified  by  the  other  class  of  pas- 
sages which  speak  of  the  sweep  and  the  persistence 
of  the  opposition  to  Jesus;  but  still  it  unquestionably 
shows  that  Jesus  anticipated  immense,  world-wide  re- 
sults from  His  seed-sowing. 

And  here  the  matter  must  be  left  by  the  historical 
student.  Jesus  saw  no  cessation  of  the  conflict  within 
the  horizon  of  earthly  history.  He  saw  increasing 
victory  in  the  coming  years,  a  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  throughout  the  entire  earth,  a  leavening  of 
the  whole  mass  of  humanity,  a  world-wide  influence 
of  attraction  proceeding  from  Him  as  the  revealer  of 
God  ;  but  no  era  when  conflict  should  cease,  no  era 
when  His  disciples  could  drop  the  petition  for  de- 
liverance from  the  evil  one,  or  when  they  would  no 
longer  have  opportunity  to  bear  witness  for  Him 
and  labor  for  the  extension  of  His  kingdom. 


CHAPTER   V 

The  Person  of  Jesus  the  Messiah 

The  first  fact  which  meets  us  in  the  Synoptic 
testimony  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  His  own  person  is 
that  He  claims  and  manifests  a  truly  human  L  -phe 
consciousness.  It  is  important  to  notice  g^ugnesTof 
the  character  and  extent  of  this  evidence,  Jesus- 
both  on  its  own  account  and  because  of  its  bearing 
on  the  question  of  the  Messianic  consciousness  of 
Jesus. 

In  the  examination  of  this  point  we  may  begin 
with  the  account  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness, 
which  must  be  traced  at  last  to  Jesus'  own  report 
to  His  disciples.  Here  Jesus  applies  to  Himself 
words  which  were  spoken  of  old  to  the  individual 
Israelite.  He  throws  up,  as  a  bulwark  against  the 
tempter,  various  moral  teachings  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, thus  manifestly  feeling  that  He  is  on  the  same 
plane  with  those  to  whom  the  words  first  came.  He 
quotes,  as  applicable  to  Himself:  "Man  shall  not  live 
by  bread  alone;"  "  Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord 
thy  God;"  "  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God" 

167 


1 68  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

(Mt.  iv.  4,  7-10).  This  language  seems  to  be  an 
unmistakable  expression  of  a  human  consciousness. 
Jesus  feels  Himself  a  man,  and  looks  up  to  Jehovah 
as  His  God,  whom  He  should  worship. 

A  little  later  than  the  experience  in  the  wilderness, 
we  see  Jesus  praying  near  Capernaum  (Mk.  i.  35). 
This  act  is  one  of  a  series  stretching  through  the 
entire  ministry  of  Jesus.  Thus  it  is  recorded  that 
Jesus  spent  an  entire  night  in  prayer  before  the 
appointment  of  the  twelve  apostles  (Lk.  vi.  12),  and 
Luke  preserves  a  tradition  that  it  was  the  praying  of 
Jesus  which  led  His  disciples  to  ask  Him  to  teach 
them  how  to  pray,  as  John  taught  his  disciples 
(Lk.  xi.  1).  Jesus  thanked  the  Father  for  revealing 
the  mystery  of  the  Gospel  to  babes  (Mt.  xi.  25).  He 
asked  God's  blessing  on  the  bread  and  fish  with 
which  at  two  different  times  he  fed  the  multitudes 
(Mk.  vi.  41  ;  viii.  6).  According  to  Luke,  Jesus  was 
engaged  in  prayer  when  the  vision  of  His  transfig- 
uration was  granted  to  the  three  disciples  (Lk.  ix.  28). 
At  the  Last  Supper  He  gave  thanks  for  the  bread 
and  wine,  and  asked  God's  blessing  upon  them 
(Mk.  xiv.  22-23).  He  prayed  repeatedly  in  Geth- 
semane  that  the  hour  might  pass  (Mk.  xiv.  35,  36,  39). 
He  prayed  on  the  cross  both  for  Himself  and  for 
those  who  had  crucified  Him  (Mk.  xv.  34;  Lk.  xxiii. 
34,  46). 


THE   PERSON  OF  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  i69 

Since  Jesus   prayed,   we   must   believe   that   He   felt 
a  need  of  prayer.     He  offered  sincere  thanks  and  sin- 
cere   supplications  for  the  Father's  help.      He  looked 
away    from    Himself    as    one    consciously    dependent. 
He   subordinated   His   will   to   a   higher   will  (Mk.  xiv. 
36).     He    secured    inward    quietness    and    strength    by 
casting   Himself    upon   the   will   of    God.     Now  in    all 
these  situations  Jesus  comes  before  us  as  a  true  man. 
There    is    the    same    sense    of    creaturely    dependence 
that   we    find    in    ourselves.     Jesus    did    not    have    one 
kind  of  prayer  for  Himself  and  another  kind  for  His 
disciples.    .  As    He    approached    God    with    the    name 
Father,    so    He    taught    His    disciples    to    do.      The 
prayers  of  Jesus  can  all  be  prayed   by  His  followers, 
as    far   as    their   circumstances    correspond    with     His. 
There  is   nothing  in  them  that  suggests    a  conscious- 
ness  other   than   that   of   an   ideal   man.     This   line  of 
evidence  is  of  peculiar  value,  for  through  the  prayers 
of   any   soul   we   see   into  its   inmost   depths,   its    most 
sacred  feelings  and  beliefs. 

The  human  consciousness  of  Jesus  is  further  seen 
in  His  sense  of  limited  knowledge.  This  is,  of  course, 
implied  in  the  fact  of  prayer,  but  there  is  other  evi- 
dence of  an  absolute  character.  Thus  Jesus  declares 
that  the  hour  of  His  parousia  is  unknown  to  Him, 
and  known  only  to  the  Father  (Mk.  xiii.  32;  Mt.  xxiv. 
36).     This  statement  is  clear  and  positive.     It  is  equal 


I/O  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

to  a  declaration  that  He  is  not  omniscient;  or,  taking 
this  fact  together  with  the  preceding  evidence  of  a 
human  consciousness,  it  seems  necessary  to  say  that 
these  words  imply  a  consciousness  of  the  ordinary 
human  limitations  of  knowledge.  Moreover,  there 
are  particular  circumstances  in  the  life  of  Jesus  which 
confirm  this  statement.  Thus  He  came  to  a  fig 
tree  on  a  certain  occasion  to  see  if  it  had  fruit 
(Mk.  xi.  13-14).  He  plainly  thought  it  possible  that 
He  might  find  some,  and  He  was  mistaken.  Again, 
He  asked  His  disciples  how  many  loaves  they  had 
(Mk.  vi.  38),  and  on  another  occasion,  when  people 
were  thronging  Him,  He  asked  who  had  touched 
Him  (Mk.  v.  30).  He  asked  a  blind  man,  whose 
eyes  He  had  touched,  whether  he  saw  anything 
(Mk.  viii.  23);  and  other  blind  men,  who  sought  heal- 
ing, He  asked  whether  they  believed  Him  able  to 
heal  them  (Mt.  ix.  28).  He  asked  the  father  of  the 
epileptic  boy  how  long  his  child  had  been  thus  af- 
flicted (Mk.  ix.  21).  Now  in  all  these,  and  other 
similar  cases  in  the  Synoptic  record,  if  we  interpret 
naturally,  we  must  suppose  that  Jesus  was  sincere  in 
His  questions,  and  asked  for  information.  There  is 
no  intimation  that  He  knew  beforehand  and  only 
asked  the  questions  for  effect.  On  the  contrary,  in 
view  of  the  evidence  already  considered,  that  Jesus 
had    a    human    consciousness,   it    must  be    held    to    be 


THE   PERSON   OF   JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  171 

entirely  unfounded  when  one  says  that  Jesus  did  not 
need  to  ask  questions.  The  few  exceptional  occasions 
when  His  knowledge  surpassed  human  limitations  be- 
long with  His  miraculous  deeds,  and  have  the  same 
explanation. 

As  Jesus  was  conscious  of  limited  knowledge,  so 
also  of  limited  power.  The  fact  that  He  prayed  is 
sufficient  basis  for  this  statement,  but  there  is  further 
evidence  which  must  be  noticed.  Thus  Jesus  says 
that  it  is  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  or,  in  Luke's  version, 
by  the  finger  of  God,  that  He  casts  out  demons  (Mt.  xii. 
28 ;  Lk.  xi.  20).  He  does  not  do  it  in  His  own  un- 
aided strength,  but  in  dependence  upon  the  power 
of  God.  In  the  absence  of  any  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary, we  are  required  to  apply  to  all  His  miracles 
what  Jesus  here  said  in  regard  to  a  particular  class 
of  them,  and  hold  that  He  wrought  them  all  in  con- 
scious dependence  on  God.  Again,  Jesus  tells  the 
ambitious  brothers,  James  and  John,  that  it  is  not  in 
His  power  to  bestow  upon  them  the  first  places  even 
in  His  own  kingdom  (Mk.  x.  40).  To  do  that  would 
transcend  the  limits  of  His  authority.  Once  more, 
in  the  hour  of  His  arrest,  Jesus  rebuked  the  well- 
meant  attempt  of  Peter  to  defend  Him  with  sword, 
and  said  that  if  He  needed  deliverance  He  could  pray 
His  Father,  and  He  would  send  Him  more  than  twelve 
legions  of  angels  (Mt.  xxvi.    53).     Thus   He  was  con- 


172  THE   REVELATION    OF  JESUS 

scious  that,  in  Himself,  He  was  helpless.  His  rescue 
from  Judas  and  the  soldiers  must  come  from  God,  if 
it  come  at  all.  His  own  power  and  that  of  His  dis- 
ciples is  limited ;  but  God's  power  is  unlimited. 

Thus  we  have  clear  and  unambiguous  proof  that 
Jesus  was  conscious  of  limitation  in  power  as  of  limita- 
tion in  knowledge.  The  superhuman  power  which 
He  exercised  at  times  was,  according  to  His  own 
testimony,  given  to  Him.  It  was  not  native  and  in- 
herent. And  we  must  judge  in  the  same  manner  of 
the  supernatural  knowledge  which  Jesus  manifested 
at  times.  By  supernatural  knowledge  is  not  meant 
omniscience.  As  we  have  already  seen,  the  theory 
that  Jesus  was  omniscient  is  wrecked  on  His  plain 
word,  and  ought  never  to  have  been  held.  But  He 
certainly  had  supernatural  knowledge  in  regard  to 
particular  events,  as,  for  example,  in  regard  to  His 
own  death  and  resurrection.  It  is  true,  the  evidences 
of  such  knowledge  are  comparatively  rare.  The  Gos- 
pel narrative,  in  the  main,  not  only  does  not  require 
us  to  think  that  Jesus  had  superhuman  knowledge, 
but  very  often  assumes  that  He  had  not.  The  evi- 
dence for  this  has  already  been  cited.  In  view,  then, 
of  these  facts,  we  must  say  that  supernatural  know- 
ledge was  no  more  inherent  in  Jesus  than  supernatural 
power.  When  He  had  such  knowledge,  it  was  a 
gift  of   God  for  the  purposes  of  the  Messianic  work. 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  1 73 

There  is  another  and  different  evidence  of  human 
consciousness  to  which  we  may  properly  refer  before 
leaving  this  subject;  and  that  is  the  fact  that  Jesus 
refused  to  be  called  good,  saying  that  only  God  is 
good  (Mk.  x.  18).  Now  it  is  certain,  as  we  shall  show 
later,  that  Jesus  was  conscious  of  perfect  integrity,  of 
absolute  sinlessness  before  God.  Therefore,  when  He 
declines  the  epithet  good,  and  says  it  belongs  to  God 
alone,  He  must  do  so  in  the  consciousness  that  He  is 
a  man,  exposed  to  temptation,  subject  to  change,  and 
not  in  the  absolute  and  unchangeable  possession  of 
goodness  or  righteousness  (comp.  Heb.  ii.  10).  He 
knows  in  Himself*  that  He  has  not  fallen  below  the 
standard  of  righteousness,  but  that  standard  is  the 
will  of  God,  not  His  own  will  (Mk.  xiv.  36),  and 
He  conforms  to  it  by  conscious  and  strenuous  moral 
effort,  as  appears,  for  example,  in  the  record  of  the 
temptation.  Had  He  been  righteous  or  good  as  God 
is  good,  He  could  not  have  been  tempted  of  evil, 
even  as  God  cannot  be  (James  i.  13).  The  standard 
of  righteousness  for  God  is  not  outside  Himself,  neither 
can  we  conceive  it  necessary  or  possible  for  Him  to 
put  forth  effort  in  order  to  be  perfectly  righteous.  We 
can  understand,  then,  how  Jesus  could  point  to  God 
as  the  only  good  one,  and  at  the  same  time  be  con- 
scious that  He  Himself  had  never  sinned.  He  does 
so  because   His   consciousness  is  that   of    a    man,  and 


174  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

He  feels  that  the  quality  of  His  inner  life  is  dependent 
upon  the  Spirit  of  God. 

A  second  fact  which  meets  us  in  the  Synoptic  record 

of  the  testimony  of  Jesus  concerning  His  own  person 

is   the  consciousness  of  perfect  moral  union 

II.   The  con-  r     J 

sciousness  of  with   the   Father.     This   is  foreshadowed  in 

perfect  moral 

union  with  the  story  of  the  boy  Jesus  in  the  temple 
(Lk.  ii.  49).  The  unclouded  consciousness 
that  God  is  His  Father,  and  the  consequent  sense 
of  obligation  to  Him,  while  they  do  not  necessarily 
argue  a  consciousness  of  sinlessness,  at  least  suggest 
that  His  consciousness  of  God  was  unique.  Yet 
an  undue  importance  may  easily  be  attached  to  this 
saying.  It  is  the  saying  of  a  boy,  and  not  of  a 
philosopher  or  a  theologian.  It  is  a  saying  which  does 
not  take  us  beyond  the  ideal  piety  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. As  we  have  already  seen,  the  Old  Testament 
sometimes  rises  to  the  conception  that  God  is  the  father, 
even  of  individual  souls,  and  of  course  teaches  that  the 
things  of  God  should  be  put  first.  Practically,  how- 
ever, the  sense  of  sonship  which  appears  in  these  words 
of  Jesus  does  not  seem  to  have  been  often  experienced 
under  the  Old  Covenant,  and  probably  was  never  ex- 
perienced in  so  high  and  pure  a  degree  as  by  Jesus 
at  twelve  years  of  age.  This  sonship  to  which  the 
passage  in  Luke  bears  witness  is  certainly  ethical  and 
only  ethical.     To  suppose  that  the  boy  Jesus  hinted  at 


THE    PERSON  OF  JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  175 

a  peculiar  metaphysical  relation  to  God  when  he  said 
"my  Father,"  is  a  view  which  is  condemned  by  the 
explicit  and  abounding  evidence  that  Jesus  had  a  truly 
human  consciousness.  To  suppose  that  He  used  the 
words  in  a  Messianic  sense  is  simply  to  ignore  one 
of  the  plainest  historical  teachings  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  for  they  date  the  Messianic  consciousness  of 
Jesus  from  the  hour  of  His  baptism.  It  remains,  then, 
to  see  in  the  words  of  the  boy  Jesus  the  evidence 
of  an  ideal  filial  spirit.  They  harmonize  perfectly 
with  the  evangelist's  sketch  of  the  truly  human  devel- 
opment of  Jesus,  when  he  says  that  He  "  advanced 
in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and 
men  "  (Lk.  ii.  52). 

When  we  come  to  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  we 
find  abundant  evidence  that  He  was  conscious  of  a 
peculiar  moral  relation  to  God.  We  notice  this  first  in 
His  attitude  toward  the  Law.  In  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  He  says  that  He  came  to  fulfil  the  Law  and  the 
prophets  (Mt.  v.  17),  and  it  is  plain  from  the  following 
verse  that  He  is  not  thinking  of  the  Messianic  prophe- 
cies in  particular,  but  of  the  comprehensive  moral 
purpose  of  God.  It  follows  from  this  claim  of  Jesus 
that  He  was  conscious  of  being  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  divine  ideal.  Had  His  vision  of  God  been  obscured 
by  any  slightest  consciousness  of  sin  and  ill  desert,  He 
must,  if  honest,  have  recognized  that  He  could  not  fulfil 


iy6  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

the  Law  and  the  prophets.  He  must  have  known 
within  Himself  that  He  was  not  qualified  to  see  or  to 
say  what  the  perfect  will  of  God  is.  He  might  have 
felt  Himself  in  line  with  the  lawgiver  and  the  prophets, 
as  called  of  God  to  communicate  His  revelation,  but  He 
could  not  have  had  the  serene  consciousness  of  mani- 
festing the  final  message  of  God  to  men.  In  order  to 
fulfil  this  end  He  must  have  been  conscious  of  standing 
in  perfect  accord  with  the  will  of  His  heavenly  Father. 
Again,  a  consciousness  of  perfect  moral  union  with 
God  is  involved  in  Jesus'  claim  to  be  the  judge  of  men. 
He  is  the  judge  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  He  is  also  the 
standard.  He  makes  it  plain  that  He  will  judge  men 
according  to  their  attitude  toward  Him  (Mt.  x.  32-33  ; 
Mk.  viii.  35,  38  ;  Mt.  xviii.  6,  etc.).  Whosoever  con- 
fesses Him,  He  will  confess  before  His  Father;  who- 
soever denies  Him,  He  will  deny  before  His  Father. 
Whosoever  causes  a  little  one  who  believes  in  Him  to 
stumble,  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were 
hanged  about  his  neck  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the 
sea.  Unless  the  Jews  repent  of  their  unbelief  toward 
Him,  they  shall  perish  (Lk.  xiii.  3,  5).  Those  on  the 
right  hand  of  the  Judge  are  approved  because  they 
have  manifested  the  spirit  of  Jesus  (Mt.  xxv.  37). 
According  to  this  scene,  the  spirit  of  Jesus  is  the 
test  of  judgment.  But  since  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the 
standard    according    to    which    all    mankind    are   to  be 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  \JJ 

assigned  to  their  everlasting  conditions,  He  must 
have  believed  that  the  standard  was  perfect.  And 
the  other  passages  which  have  just  been  cited  are 
in  harmony  with  this  scene.  Confessing  Jesus  or 
denying  Him  means  accepting  or  rejecting  Him  as 
the  anointed  of  God,  who  by  His  life  and  teaching 
makes  known  the  perfect  way  of  salvation.  So  the 
consciousness  of  being  the  judge  of  men  involves  the 
consciousness  of  being  in  perfect  accord  with  the  will 
of  God. 

Again,  there  is  proof  that  Jesus  was  conscious  of 
perfect  moral  union  with  God  in  the  fact  that  He  never 
betrays  the  slightest  sense  of  guilt.  This  fact  cannot 
be  taken  alone ;  it  owes  its  chief  significance  to  another 
fact,  namely,  that  Jesus  showed  the  most  perfect  appre- 
hension of  sin  and  virtue.  Thus  in  all  His  teaching 
He  goes  beneath  the  outward  act  and  profession,  and 
declares  that  everything  depends  upon  the  purpose  of 
the  heart.  It  is  by  this  that  a  man  is  judged  sinful 
or  virtuous.  The  ethical  teaching  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  estimated  by  Jesus  with  unerring  insight,  and 
the  hypocrisy  of  the  religious  leaders  of  His  own  day 
is  uncovered  and  analyzed  in  a  way  that  argues  perfect 
moral  perception.  Now  that  a  man  with  such  an 
apprehension  of  sin  and  virtue  never  betrays  any  sense 
of  ill  desert  is  an  evidence  of  the  greatest  importance. 
Jesus  taught  his  disciples  to  pray  for  the  forgiveness 


178  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

of  their  debts  (Mt.  vi.  12),  but  He  never  prays  thus. 
He  adopts  the  lament  of  the  Psalmist,  "  My  God,  why 
hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  but  it  is  plain  that  these 
words  do  not  imply  a  sense  of  ill  desert  (Mk.  xv.  34). 
Had  He  been  conscious  of  ill  desert,  then  the  feeling 
that  God  was  afar  off  would  have  been  no  mystery 
to  Him.  In  the  various  prayers  of  Jesus  there  is  never 
a  word  nor  an  accent  of  confession;  but  had  He  been 
conscious  of  any  sin,  He  was  the  one  of  all  men  who 
would  have  been  most  deeply  humbled  by  it.  The 
saintlier  a  man  is,  the  keener  is  his  shame  and  pain 
when  he  does  wrong. 

In  connection  with  this  absence  of  any  trace  of  guilt, 
and  confirming  what  has  been  said,  we  may  notice  the 
absolute  serenity  of  Jesus  in  the  moments  of  extreme 
peril,  and  when  confronting  death  on  the  cross.  He  was 
calm  when  the  boat  was  beginning  to  sink  on  the  lake 
of  Galilee  (Mk.  iv.  38-40).  He  was  agitated,  it  is  true, 
in  Gethsemane,  but  not  through  fear  of  what  comes 
after  death  (Mk.  xiv.  33-34).  He  prayed  that  a  certain 
cup  might  pass,  but  there  was  no  obstruction  between 
Him  and  the  Father.  His  fellowship  with  God  was 
untroubled.  His  highest  desire  was  that  the  divine 
will  might  be  done  (Mk.  xiv.  36).  When  about  to  ex- 
pire on  the  cross,  He  assured  the  dying  robber  that  he 
should  be  with  Him  that  day  in  Paradise  (Lk.  xxiii.  43). 
There  is  not  only  no  fear  of  what  is  after  death,  but 


THE   PERSON   OF   JESUS   THE    MESSIAH  I  79 

there  is  a  perfect  certainty  of  entering  Paradise ;  and 
what  is  more,  there  is  a  calm  assurance  that  He  can 
promise  Paradise  to  the  dying  man  at  His  side. 

We  have  seen  that  Jesus  had  a  truly  human  con- 
sciousness, and  that  He  had  also  a  consciousness  of 
perfect  moral   union  with    God.     Still   more  m.  The 

,  tj       Messianic 

varied  and  extensive  is  the  evidence  that  He  consciOUs- 
was  conscious  of  being  the  Messiah  of  the  *esT°/e{^' 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  We  find  this  son  of  God. 
evidence,  first,  in  the  titles  which  Jesus  applied  to 
Himself,  or  which  were  given  to  Him  by  others 
and  which  He  tacitly  accepted.  We  come  upon  the 
first  of  these  significant  titles  in  the  hour  of  Jesus' 
baptism,  when  He  heard  a  voice  out  of  heaven  saying, 
"  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased  " 
(Mk.  ii.  io-ii;  Mt.  iii.  16-17;  Lk.  hi.  21-22).  This 
communication  was  a  divine  revelation  to  Jesus,  a  clear 
disclosure  to  His  spirit  of  a  new  and  momentous  re- 
lationship to  God.  Under  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  given  to  Jesus  now  in  the  fullest  measure,  the 
consciousness  of  being  the  well  beloved  Son  of  God 
was  awakened.1  We  are  here  concerned  not  with  the 
method,  but  with  the  meaning  of  this  communication. 
When  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  expressed  itself  in  the 
words,  I  am  the  beloved  Son  of  God,  what  did  those 
words  signify  to  Him  ?     The  Synoptic  Gospels  leave  us 

1  Comp.  Baldensperger,  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  fesu,  p.  163. 


180  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

in  no  doubt  as  to  the  reply  which  must  be  given  to  that 
question.  On  the  lips  of  Jesus  and  the  evangelists, 
the  title  Son  of  God,  as  applied  to  Jesus,  had  a  preemi- 
nently Messianic  significance,  but  also  an  ethical  ele- 
ment.1 It  seems  plain  that  Jesus  so  understood  the 
term,  for,  in  the  first  place,  from  the  hour  of  His  bap- 
tism, when  He  was  addressed  as  the  Son  of  God,  His 
career  is  distinctively  Messianic.  His  temptation  is  in- 
telligible only  on  the  view  that  Jesus  believed  Himself 
to  be  the  Messiah,  and  in  the  wilderness  was  contem- 
plating the  Messianic  work.  In  other  words,  the 
Messianic  temptation  implies  that  the  heavenly  an- 
nouncement, "Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,"  was  for 
Jesus  a  virtual  announcement  of  Messiahship.  Its 
burden,  therefore,  was  not  ethical.  If  the  term  Son  of 
God  had  for  Jesus,  primarily,  the  thought  of  a  unique 
relationship  of  love  with  the  Father,  then  it  is  not  ap- 
parent why  Jesus  was  impelled  to  go  from  the  place  of 
baptism  into  the  wilderness,  to  a  temptation  which  con- 
cerned the  exercise  of  His  Messianic  prerogatives.  A 
sense  of  the  Father's  love,  even  the  sense  of  an  alto- 
gether special  love  of  the  Father,  does  not  lead  to  the 
wilderness  and  to  temptation.     Such  a  sense  of  God's 

1  Comp.  Fairbairn,  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  p.  193;  Bruce,  The 
Kingdom  cf  God,  p.  166;  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  76-77; 
Beyschlag,  N eutestamentliche  '1  heologie,  i.  66-67;  Baldensperger,  Das 
Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu,  pp.  78,  160;   Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  433. 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  i8l 

love  might  call  a  noble  soul  to  self-sacrifice,  but  it  is 
not  apparent  why  its  possessor  should  at  once  feel  him- 
self clothed  with  Messianic  authority.  Not  only  does 
the  temptation  imply  that  Jesus  regarded  the  baptismal 
announcement  as  a  revelation  of  Messiahship,  but  it 
is  also  implied  in  the  fact  that,  immediately  after  the 
temptation,  Jesus  entered  upon  Messianic  work.  As 
far,  then,  as  the  Synoptic  record  goes,  the  Messianic 
temptation  and  the  Messianic  career  have  their  origin 
in  the  heavenly  announcement  by  the  Jordan,  "  Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son." 

There  is  another  passage  in  which  Jesus  virtually  ap- 
plies to  Himself  the  title  Son  of  God,  though  not  of  His 
own  impulse ;  and  the  teaching  of  this  is  no  less  explicit 
than  that  of  the  foregoing  facts.  The  high  priest 
demands  of  Jesus  that  He  shall  say,  under  oath, 
whether  He  is  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed,  or  as 
Matthew  says,  the  Son  of  God  (Mk.  xiv.  61-62;  Lk. 
xxii.  66-70 ;  Mt.  xxvi.  63-64).  Jesus  replies,  "  I  am," 
that  is,  I  am  the  Christ,  I  am  the  Son  of  God.  There 
is  no  suggestion  here  that  the  term  Son  of  God  means 
anything  different  from  Christ.  It  appears  to  be  an 
explanatory  synonym. 

The  passages  in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  God  as  His 
Father  do  not  belong  in  this  connection,  though  of 
course,  every  time  that  He  thus  speaks,  He  claims 
to  be  in  some  sense  a  Son  of    God.       But  still  these 


1 82  THE    REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

passages  are  not  to  be  classed  with  the  Messianic 
titles,  because  Jesus  refers  to  God  as  the  Father 
of  His  disciples  and  of  other  men,  no  less  than  as 
His  own  Father.  There  is  no  suggestion  that  He 
puts  something  essential  into  the  fatherhood  in  one 
case  which  it  does  not  have  in  the  other. 

Again,  it  is  plain  that  the  evangelists,  as  well  as 
Jesus,  made  no  essential  distinction  between  the  titles 
Messiah  and  Son  of  God.  Sometimes  they  represent 
the  demoniacs  as  knowing  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah 
(Mk.  i.  34;  Lk.  iv.  41),  or,  what  is  equivalent,  the 
Consecrated  One  of  God  (Mk.  i.  24) ;  and  again  as  call- 
ing Him  the  Son  of  God  (Mk.  iii.  11).  This  inter- 
change of  terms  we  find  in  one  and  the  same  writer, 
and  even  within  the  compass  of  a  single  verse.  Thus, 
in  Lk.  iv.  41,  we  read  that  demons  came  out  of  many 
persons,  saying  (to  Jesus),  "Thou  art  the  Son  of 
God ;  "  and  also  that  He  did  not  allow  them  to  speak 
because  they  knew  that  He  was  the  Christ.  It  is 
obvious  that  this  evangelist  regarded  the  two  terms 
as  synonyms,  and  it  is  sufficiently  plain  that  they  were 
so  regarded  by  Mark. 

In  the  account  of  the  confession  of  Peter,  Mark 
has  the  words,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,"  while  Matthew 
has,  "Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God" 
(Mk.  viii.  29;  Mt.  xvi.  16).  It  can  hardly  be  held 
that   Matthew's  second  clause  introduces  any  new  idea. 


THE   PERSON  OF  JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  183 

It  simply  strengthens  the  statement  that  Jesus  is  the 
Messiah.  Peter  does  not  confess  two  things,  namely, 
that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  and  also  that  he  stands  in 
a  unique  relation  of  love  to  the  Father.  Again,  in 
Luke's  account  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  by  the  sanhedrin, 
the  members  of  the  court  ask  Jesus  if  He  is  the 
Christ,  and  then  after  a  moment  ask  if  He  is  the  Son 
of  God  (Lk.  xxii.  67,  70).  The  situation  is  unchanged, 
and  the  purport  of  the  second  question  is  exactly  that  of 
the  first.  When  they  ask  if  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  they 
do  not  seek  to  know  whether  He  claims  to  stand  in  a 
peculiar  relation  of  love  to  the  Father.  It  was  wholly 
immaterial  to  them  whether  He  claimed  such  a  rela- 
tionship of  love  or  not.  The  sole  point  of  interest  to 
them  was  whether  He  claimed  to  be  the  Jewish  Mes- 
siah. When  they  found  that  He  did,  they  charged 
Him  with  blasphemy  (Mt.  xxvi.  6).  Holding  such 
views  as  they  did  of  the  glory  and  power  of  the  Mes- 
siah, they  could  use  no  milder  term  than  blasphemy 
for  the  claim  of  this  helpless  prisoner,  this  untaught 
man,  who  had  never  even  been  recognized  by  the  re- 
ligious authorities  in  Israel,  this  would-be  reformer 
from  Nazareth,  who  had  been  betrayed  by  one  of  His 
own  disciples  for  the  paltry  sum  of  fifteen  dollars.1 

Therefore,  we  must  say,  that  in  the  thought  of  Jesus 
and  of  the  Jews  of   His  day,  the  title  Son  of  God  was 

1  Comp.  Holtzmann,  Lehrbuch  der  neutestamentlichen  Theologie,  i.  265. 


1 84  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

practically  equivalent  to  Messiah.  So  it  belongs  with 
the  titles  :  The  Coming  One  (Mt.  xi.3),  The  Holy  One  of 
God  (Mk.  i.  24),  The  Sou  of  David  (Mt.  xii.  23),  and 
The  King  of  Israel  (^Mk.  xv.  32),  ail  of  which  were 
used  in  addressing  Jesus  but  never  employed  by  Him. 
This  title  Son  of  God  is  based  directly  upon  the  Old 
Testament,  and  particularly  upon  Ps.  ii.  7  (comp.  Ps. 
lxxxix.  27;  2  Sam.  vii.  14),  which  is  applied  to  Jesus 
by  New  Testament  writers  (Acts  xiii.  33  ;  Heb.  i.  5). 
The  Messianic  king,  who  was  a  type  of  the  Messiah, 
is  here  called  the  Son  of  God.  Jehovah  says  to  Him, 
"Thou  art  my  son:  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 
This  was  a  term  of  dignity  and  honor,  but  plainly 
not  of  essential  relationship.  The  Messianic  king  of 
Ps.  ii.  7,  whether  David  or  another  man,  was  not 
thought  of  as  having  a  nature  different  from  that  of 
other  men.  He  stood  hisrh  in  the  favor  of  God,  but  his 
sonship  was  evidently  not  metaphysical.  The  act  of 
begetting  is  nothing  else  than  the  enthronement  of  the 
Messianic  king,  his  introduction  into  the  royal  sphere. 
So  Peter  understood  it,  who  saw  its  fulfilment  in  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  which  was  the  beginning  of  His 
exaltation  to  the  Messianic  throne.  But  if  the  Mes- 
sianic king  is  called  the  Son  of  God  because  He  is 
enthroned  by  God,  then  plainly  the  sonship  is  official. 
The  fact  that  God  has  enthroned  Him  may  show  that 
God   loves   Him,  but  this   love   is   implied  rather  than 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS  THE    MESSIAH  185 

expressed.  Therefore  this  Old  Testament  passage, 
both  in  itself  and  as  understood  by  Peter,  prepares  the 
way  for  the  distinctly  Messianic  use  of  the  title  Son  of 
God,  which  we  find  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  In  con- 
clusion, it  may  be  remarked  that  since  Jesus  and  the 
evangelists  used  this  title  as  synonymous  with  Messiah, 
the  theological  use  of  it,  which  refers  it  primarily  to 
the  nature  of  Jesus,  has  no  basis  in  the  Gospels.1 

The  Messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus  is  further  seen 
in  the  title,  The  Son  of  man.  This  first  appears  in  the 
account  of  what  happened  in  the  house  of  b  Thetith, 
Peter  at  Capernaum,  when  the  paralytic  was  Son  of  man. 
lowered  through  the  roof  (Mk.  ii.  10).  Jesus  forgave 
the  man's  sins,  and  when  accused  of  blasphemy 
for  thus  exercising  a  function  which  belongs  to  God, 
He  declared  that  the  Son  of  man  had  authority  to 
forgive  sins.  This  title,  unlike  the  title  Son  of  God,  is 
used  in  the  Gospels  by  Jesus  only,  and  is  used  by  Him 
frequently.  It  is  found  once  on  the  lips  of  the  angels 
in  the  empty  tomb,  but  they  use  it  in  a  quotation  from 
the  words  of  Jesus  (Lk.  xxiv.  7).  It  is,  therefore, 
Jesus'  own  peculiar  self-designation  ;  and  in  the  usage 
of  Jesus  Himself  we  have  conclusive  evidence  of  the 
significance  which  He  attached  to  it.  We  are  not 
dependent  upon  the  apocalyptic  literature ;  we  are  not 
obliged  to  give  any  particular  weight  to  Dan.  vii.  13  ; 

1  Comp.  Bruce,  The  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  184. 


1 86  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

and  we  need  not  lay  any  especial  stress  on  the  definite 
article,  the  Son  of  man.  The  usage  of  Jesus  is  plain 
and  decisive.  On  two  occasions  Jesus  speaks  of  the 
Son  of  man  as  one  concerning  whom  the  Scriptures 
bear  witness.  Thus  in  the  conversation  caused  by  the 
transfiguration,  when  the  disciples  asked  Him,  saying, 
"  The  scribes  say  that  Elijah  must  first  come  and 
restore  all  things,"  Jesus  replied,  "  Elijah  indeed  cometh 
first  and  restoreth  all  things :  and  how  then  is  it  written 
of  the  Son  of  man,  that  He  should  suffer  many  things 
and  be  set  at  naught"  (Mk.  ix.  11-12  ;  Mt.  xvii.  10-13)? 
Now  the  disciples  and  scribes  thought  that  Elijah 
would  come  to  prepare  for  the  Messiah.  When,  there- 
fore, Jesus  indorses  their  general  thought,  and  says 
that  Elijah  cometh  first  and  restoreth  all  things,  and 
then  asks  the  question,  "  How  is  it  written  of  the  Son 
of  man,  that  He  should  suffer  many  things  ? "  it  is 
manifest  that  He  means  by  the  "Son  of  man  "  no  other 
than  the  prophesied  Messiah. 

Again,  in  the  solemn  dialogue  between  Jesus  and  the 
high  priest,  we  have  unmistakable  evidence  that  the 
title  Son  of  man  expressed  a  Messianic  consciousness. 
The  high  priest  asked  Him,  "  Art  Thou  the  Christ,  the 
son  of  the  Blessed?"  and  Jesus  replied,  "I  am,  and 
ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand 
of  power  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  "  (Mk. 
xiv.  61,  62).  The  equivalence  of  the  titles  is  here 
beyond  question, 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  187 

On  the  evening  before  the  crucifixion,  Jesus  said  to 
His  disciples,  "  The  Son  of  man  goeth,  even  as  it  is 
written  of  Him"  (Mk.  xiv.  21).  But  there  is  nothing 
written  in  the  Old  Testament  regarding  the  suffering 
and  death  of  one  who  is  there  called  the  Son  of  man. 
There  is,  however,  something  written  regarding  the 
Messiah ;  and  since  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  when  He  speaks  of  the 
Scripture  regarding  the  Son  of  man,  He  uses  this  title 
as  equivalent  to  Messiah. 

Again,  the  functions  which  Jesus  claims  for  the  Son 
of  man  are  prevailingly  Messianic.  Thus,  the  Son  of 
man  has  authority  to  forgive  sin  (Mk.  ii.  10);  the  Son 
of  man  sows  the  good  seed,  and  the  good  seed  are  the 
sons  of  the  kingdom,  and  so  it  is  the  Son  of  man  who 
establishes  the  kingdom  of  God  (Mt.  xiii.  37);  the  Son 
of  man  must  suffer  many  things  (Mk.  viii.  31),  or,  in 
the  language  of  Jesus  after  the  resurrection,  "  Behoved 
it  not  the  Christ  to  suffer  these  things  "  (Lk.  xxiv.  26)? 
The  Son  of  man  shall  be  seated  at  the  right  hand  of 
power  and  shall  judge  all  nations  (Mk.  xiv.  62  ;  Mt. 
xxv.  31).  In  all  these  passages  there  appears  an  au- 
thority such  as  no  Scripture  attributes  to  a  prophet,  and 
which  can  be  no  less  than  Messianic. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  whatever  the  source  of  the 
title  may  have  been,  and  whatever  may  have  been  its 
use  in  apocalyptic  literature,  its  meaning  on  the  lips  of 


1 88  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

Jesus  is  undeniable.  He  does  not  use  it  to  express  the 
consciousness  that  He  is  a  man,  nor  does  He  use  it  for 
the  purpose  of  claiming  for  His  humanity  something 
unique,  as  though  it  were  equivalent  to  the  ideal  man. 
He  uses  it  simply  to  express  the  consciousness  that  He 
is  the  Messiah.  It  is  an  official  title,  and  does  not 
directly  concern  His  nature.  He  could  not  have  ap- 
plied it  to  Himself  prior  to  the  hour  of  His  baptism  by 
John,  for  it  was  in  that  hour  and  not  before  that  He 
became  conscious  of  Messiahship. 

The  result  of  this  study  of  Jesus'  own  usage Y  may  be 
strengthened,  in  the  judgment  of  some  minds,  by  the 
famous  passage  in  Daniel,  which  the  New  Testament 
treats  as  Messianic  (Rev.  i.  13  ;  xiv.  14),  and  also  by  the 
apocalyptic  literature,  especially  the  Book  of  Enoch,2 
where  the  Son  of  man  is  plainly  a  Messianic  title.3 

In  conclusion  on  these  two  titles,  The  Son  of  God  and 
The  Son  of  man,  it  may  be  said  that  the  latter,  since  it 
is  purely  official,  is  somewhat  narrower  than  the  former. 
The  title  Son  of  God  was  Messianic,  but  it  was  first 
ethical.  It  could  be  applied  to  Jesus  in  a  Messianic 
sense  because  it  was  perfectly  applicable  to  Him  in  an 

1  The  view  of  Lietzmann,  that  the  title  Son  of  man  is  a  Christian  inter- 
polation, is  not  well  supported.     See  Der  Menschensohn,  Hans  Lietzmann. 

2  See  chapter  xlvi.  2-4;  xlviii.  2;  lxii.  7,  9,  14;  lxiii.  11 ;  lxix.  26,  27, 
29;   lxx.  I;   lxxi.  17. 

3Comp.  Deane,  Pseudepigrapha,  p.  89;  Holtzmann,  Lehrbuch  der 
neutestamevMichen  Theologie,  i.  261, 


THE   PERSON   OF   JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  189 

ethical  sense.1  It  was  of  course  needful  that  He  should 
be  in  perfect  harmony  with  God  in  order  that  He  might 
execute  God's  highest  commission.  If  the  above  posi- 
tions are  correct,  it  is  obvious  that  the  traditional  view  of 
these  titles,  which  regarded  one  as  a  designation  of  the 
divine  nature  of  Jesus  and  the  other  as  a  designation  of 
His  human  nature^  is  fundamentally  and  entirely  wrong. 
Neither  of  them  refers  to  His  nature ;  both  are  pri- 
marily Messianic. 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  Messianic  titles,  there 
are  two  points  demanding  brief  notice.    Jesus 

v  &  J  c.  Other 

declared  that  He  was  greater  than  the  temple  Messianic 

data. 

(Mt.  xii.  6),  greater  than  Jonah  (Mt.  xii.  41), 
and  greater  than  Solomon  (Mt.  xii.  42).  It  is  difficult  to 
understand  this  language  except  as  uttered  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  Messiahship.  A  Jew  could  not  compare 
himself  with  the  temple,  the  holy  centre  of  the  religion 
of  Israel,  and  declare  that  he  was  greater  than  it,  unless 
he  was  conscious  of  being  the  consummator  of  Israel's 
hope  and  redemption. 

Another  point  is  the  use  of  the  word  Lord.  This  was 
frequently  applied  to  Jesus  by  others  and  sometimes  by 
Himself.  Lord  is  a  word  of  relation,  whose  correlative 
is  servant.  It  simply  means  the  master,  the  superior, 
and  so  is  applicable  alike  to  man  and  God.  Thus  Jesus 
says  that  no  man  can  serve  two  lords,  and  again, 
1  See  Bruce,  The  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  180. 


I90  THE  REVELATION  OF  JESUS 

"Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God"  (Mt.  vi.  24; 
iv.  10).  The  term  has  then  no  reference  to  nature. 
What  sort  of  mastership  it  denotes,  depends  in  each  case 
upon  the  context.  The  term  is  often  applied  to  Jesus 
by  His  disciples  and  by  others,  and  is  always  used  as 
a  term  of  respect.  Thus  it  is  interchangeable  with  rabbi 
(Mk.  ix.  5  ;  Mt.  xvii.  4),  rabboni  (Mk.  x.  51  ;  Lk.  xviii. 
41),  teacher  and  master  (Mk.  iv.  38).  Manifestly,  then, 
it  has  no  implication  of  Messiahship,  still  less  of  any- 
thing peculiar  in  the  nature  of  Jesus. 

The  Messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus  gives  other  ex- 
pression of  itself  in  the  Synoptists  than  that  of  the  Mes- 
sianic titles.  He  claims  Messianic  functions,  which 
have  already  been  enumerated.  In  like  manner,  the 
importance  which  Jesus  claimed  for  His  person  (e.g. 
Mt.  x.  32-33  ;  Mk.  xiv.  9),  the  promise  to  give  spiritual 
rest  to  all  who  come  to  Him  (Mt.  xi.  28-29),  the  convic- 
tion that  the  Church  built  on  loyalty  to  Him  would  be 
indestructible  (Mt.  xvi.  18),  the  assurance  that  He  should 
speedily  rise  from  the  dead  (Mk.  viii.  31),  that  He 
should  be  present  with  His  disciples  till  the  end  of  the 
age  (Mt.  xxviii.  20),  and  that  He  should  be  manifested 
in  glory  at  last  (Mt.  xxv.  31),  —  all  these  great  utter- 
ances of  Jesus  presuppose  a  consciousness  of  Messiah- 
ship.  It  is  because  He  knows  Himself  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah, that  He  is  sure  of  being  able  to  bestow  God's 
peace  upon  men,  and  is  confident  that  whatever  may 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  191 


come  to  Him  of  outward  shame  and  suffering,  His 
Church  shall  be  imperishable  and  His  service  world- 
wide.1 

We  have  seen  that  the  Messianic  consciousness  of 
Jesus  rested,  according  to  the  Synoptists,  upon  a  divine 
revelation  which  came  to  Him  in  the  hour  d.  Messianic 
of  His  baptism.     It  was  not  an  attainment  consclous- 

1  ness  not 

either  sudden  or  gradual.  The  revelation  develoPed- 
was  doubtless  ethically  conditioned,  as  is  all  revela- 
tion, and  this  ethical  preparation  extended  through 
the  entire  previous  life  of  Jesus ;  but  the  Messianic 
consciousness  was  originated  by  God  in  the  hour  of 
baptism.  And  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  conscious- 
ness developed  as  the  months  of  the  ministry  passed. 
It  does  not  appear  at  first  wavering  and  afterward 
firm.  Jesus  was  tempted  in  the  wilderness,  but  the 
temptation  touched  the  manifestations  of  His  Messiah- 
ship  rather  than  its  existence.  Jesus  did  not  make  a 
public  verbal  claim  to  Messiahship  at  the  beginning 
of  His  ministry,  according  to  the  first  three  Gospels. 
There  is  a  noticeable  reticence  on  His  part.  He 
checks  the  demonized  who  address  Him  as  Messiah 
{e.g.  Mk.  i.  34;  iii.  12).  He  avoids  publicity  in  the 
working    of    some    of    His    most    impressive    miracles 

1  Mt.  xiv.  33  is  not  discussed  among  the  data  for  Messianic  con- 
sciousness, because  of  the  manifest  bearing  which  the  parallel  in  Mk.  vi. 
£1-52  has  upon  it. 


192  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

{e.g.  Mk.  v.  40).  He  does  not  call  Himself  by  the 
popular  titles  of  the  Messiah,  as,  for  example,  Son  of 
David.  He  does  not  do  the  things  which  people  ex- 
pected of  the  Messiah.  The  first  explicit  verbal  claim 
to  Messiahship,  made  in  public,  was  at  the  trial  by  the 
sanhedrin  (Mk.  xiv.  62).  But  these  facts  are  not  proof 
that  the  consciousness  of  Messiahship  developed  from 
weakness  to  strength.  There  are  facts,  moreover, 
which  preclude  such  a  development.  Thus  the  ac- 
count of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  is  not  the  picture  of  a 
human  spirit  catching  a  glimpse  of  a  new  and  divine 
mission  that  opens  suddenly  before  it,  but  rather  of  a 
human  spirit  at  whose  very  centre  God  creatively 
awakens  a  new  consciousness.  This  consciousness  at 
once  expresses  itself  in  unmistakable,  though  not  un- 
expected, ways.  It  gives  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  a 
tone  of  authority  which  astonishes  the  worshippers  in 
the  synagogue  (Mk.  i.  22).  It  finds  utterance  in  the 
forgiveness  of  sin  (Mk.  ii.  10),  in  the  claim  to  fulfil 
the  Law,  and  in  the  quiet  unchanging  assumption  of 
Jesus  that  a  man's  attitude  toward  Him  is  of  endless 
importance.  These  facts  are  of  paramount  signifi- 
cance, and  reveal  even  at  the  beginning  of  the  minis- 
try a  deep,  clear  consciousness  of  Messiahship.  The 
solemn  affirmation  of  Messiahship  before  the  sanhe- 
drin at  the  close  of  the  ministry  presupposes  no 
clearer  consciousness  of  this  fact  on  the  part  of  Jesus 


THE  PERSON   OF   JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  1 93 

than  the  early  word  in  Peter's  house.     "  Son,  thy  sins 
are  forgiven." 

The  thought   of    Jesus    regarding    His   own    person 
occupies    a    much   larger   space    in    the    fourth   Gospel 
than  in  the  Synoptists.     This  is  in  keeping  iv.  The 
with  the  confessed  purpose  of   the   author,  the  fourth 
which  is  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah  a°^e 
(Jn.    xx.    31).       The    kingdom    of    heaven,  human  con- 

w  '  sciousness  of 

which  is  prominent  in  the  Synoptists,  gives  Jesus. 
place  now  to  the  King.  In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  re- 
garding His  person,  which  we  find  in  John,  there  are 
marked  peculiarities,  and  the  emphasis  upon  some 
points  differs  notably  from  the  Synoptic  presenta- 
tion ;  and  yet  I  believe  that  no  injustice  is  done  to 
this  teaching  by  the  statement  that  it  follows  the 
same  fundamental  lines  that  we  have  found  in  the 
Synoptists. 

And,  first,  there  is  the  truly  human  consciousness. 
This  is  less  prominent,  as  compared  with  the  con- 
sciousness of  Messiahship,  than  it  is  in  the  earlier 
Gospels,  and  this  fact  has  sometimes  led  to  the  un- 
just conclusion  that  the  humanity  of  Jesus  is  sup- 
pressed in  the  fourth  Gospel.1  In  reality,  however, 
the  fourth  Gospel,  though  especially  concerned  with 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  contains  an  even  more  for- 
cible affirmation  of  His  humanity  than  do  the   Synop- 

1  Comp.  Holtzmann,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue   Testament,  p.  455. 
o 


194  THE   REVELATION   OF    JESUS 

tists.  I  am  thinking  now  of  the  words  of  Jesus 
Himself,  and  not  of  the  observations  made  by  the 
author,  though  these,  in  which  Jesus  is  represented, 
for  example,  as  being  wearied  at  Jacob's  well  (Jn.  iv.  6), 
and  as  weeping  at  the  tomb  of  Lazarus  (Jn.  xi.  35), 
do  not  betray  a  desire  to  deny  the  genuineness  of 
Jesus'  humanity.  But  let  us  consider  simply  the  lan- 
guage which  is  attributed  to  Jesus.  As  in  the  Synop- 
tists,  so  here,  He  ranks  Himself  with  men.  He  says 
to  the  Jews,  "Ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath 
told  you  the  truth  "  (Jn.  viii.  40).  He  declares  that  the 
very  reason  why  Messianic  judgment  has  been  given 
to  Him  is  His  humanity  (Jn.  v.  27).  He  is  a  son  of 
man,  that  is,  a  human  being.  He  speaks  of  His  will 
as  distinct  from  God's  will  (Jn.  v.  30 ;  vi.  38),  though 
it  is  never  opposed  to  that  (Jn.  v.  30;  viii.  29).  He 
includes  Himself  with  the  Jews  as  one  of  those  who 
know  what  they  worship  (Jn.  iv.  22),  thus  taking  a 
human  position  over  against  God.  In  line  with  this, 
He  speaks  of  God  as  His  God  (Jn.  xx.  17),  and  as 
the  only  true  God  (Jn.  xvii.  3).  He  prays  to  Him,  as 
in  the  Synoptists.  It  is  true  that  we  see  Jesus  in 
prayer  fewer  times  in  the  fourth  Gospel  than  in  the 
three  earlier  ones,  and  on  two  occasions  He  says  that 
the  words  of  prayer  which  He  has  spoken  are  on 
account  of  those  who  stand  by  (Jn.  xi.  42;  xvii.  13). 
Once    when    an    audible    response    was    made    to    His 


THE   PERSON   OF   JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  195 

prayer,  He  said  it  came  not  for  His  sake  but  for  the 
sake  of  others  (Jn.  xii.  30).  But  these  features  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  are  not  important.  One  prayer  is  as 
significant  in  regard  to  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  as 
ten  or  twenty  would  be.  The  repeated  statement  that 
His  audible  prayer  was  for  the  sake  of  those  around 
Him,  by  no  means  shows  that  it  was  not  genuine 
prayer.  When  He  says  that  the  audible  answer  to  a 
particular  prayer  was  not  for  His  sake,  but  on  ac- 
count of  others,  He  does  not  intimate  that  He  could 
do  without  any  answer  whatsoever.  He  only  says 
that  He  did  not  need  this  particular  answer.  He 
spoke  a  word  at  the  tomb  of  Lazarus,  which  implies 
the  same  life  of  prayer  that  we  find  in  the  Synoptists, 
namely  this,  "I  knew  that  thou  hearest  me  always" 
(Jn.  xi.  42).  This  word  always  surely  implies  that 
He  was  in  the  habit  of  praying. 

While  dependence  is  clearly  implied  in  the  simple 
fact  of  prayer,  it  is  also  repeatedly  affirmed  by  Jesus 
in  the  most  explicit  terms.  Twice  the  Jews  accused 
Him  of  claiming  to  be  God  (Jn.  v.  18;  x.  33).  In  the 
first  case,  Jesus  in  His  reply  declared  His  complete 
dependence  upon  God.  He  says  and  does  only 
what  the  Father  shows  and  teaches  Him  (Jn.  v. 
19~3°)-  And  the  reason  why  the  Father  shows  Him 
what  to  do  is  that  the  Father  loves  Him  —  an  ethical, 
not  a  metaphysical,  ground  (Jn.  v.  20). 


196  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

In  the  second  instance  where  He  was  accused  of 
making  Himself  God,  His  reply  was  different  but 
equally  clear  and  important.  He  said  that  the  Scrip- 
tures justified  His  language,  for  they  call  certain  men 
gods,  to  whom  the  word  of  God  came.  The  reference 
is  to  Ps.  lxxxii.  6,  where  we  read:  — 

"  I  said.  Ye  are  gods, 
And  all  of  you  sons  of  the  Most  High.1' 

The  word  of  God,  which  Jesus  says  "  came  "  to  these 
persons,  is  the  word  which  appointed  them  rulers  over 
God's  people,1  and  hence  made  them  in  a  degree  His 
representatives.  If  now  the  Scripture,  which  cannot 
be  broken,  calls  these  earthly  rulers  gods,  it  was  cer- 
tainly lawful  for  Jesus,  whom  the  Father  had  conse- 
crated to  the  Messianic  office,  to  call  Himself  God's 
Son.  Thus  He  rests  His  right  to  the  term  on  His 
divine  appointment,  and  not  on  His  nature.  So  in 
both  these  most  significant  controversies,  where  Jesus 
is  accused  of  making  Himself  God,  we  have  from 
Him  only  expressions  of  a  human  and  Messianic  con- 
sciousness (comp.  Jn.  x.  29 ;  xiv.  28).  He  affirms  His 
absolute  dependence  upon  God,  and  rests  His  claim  to 
the  title  Son  of  God  on  His  appointment  to  the  Mes- 
sianic office.  Therefore  we  conclude  that,  while  in 
the  fourth  Gospel   there  is  relatively  less   said    of  the 

1  Comp.  Meyer's  Commentary  on  John. 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  197 

humanity  of  Jesus  than  in  the  Synoptists,  the  gen- 
uineness of  that  humanity  is  even  more  forcibly 
affirmed. 

The  consciousness  of  perfect  moral  union  with  God 
is  far  more  prominent  in  the  fourth  Gospel  than  in 
the  Synoptists.     It    is  here   directly  and  re-  . 

peatedly  affirmed,  while  in  the  Synoptists  it  conscious- 
ness of  union 
is    only    implied.      There    are    two    general  with  the 

i-ii  •  r  •  Father. 

forms  in  which  the  consciousness  of  a  unique 
moral  union  with  God  expresses  itself  in  the  fourth 
Gospel.  First,  there  are  the  declarations  which  Jesus 
makes  regarding  His  own  will  and  regarding  the 
character  of  His  life.  Thus  He  says  that  He  finds 
His  inward  satisfaction  in  doing  the  will  of  God  (Jn. 
iv.  34),  and  that  it  is  impossible  for  Him  to  do  any- 
thing of  Himself  (Jn.  v.  19,  30).  This  inability  to  do 
anything  of  Himself  is  moral,  for  Jesus  has  a  will  of 
His  own  (Jn.  v.  30;  vi.  38);  but  it  is  completely  de- 
voted to  the  Father.  He  does  always  the  things 
which  are  pleasing  to  God  (Jn.  viii.  29,  55).  He  is 
sure  that  God  always  hears  and  grants  His  petitions, 
and  this  assurance  implies  that  He  is  conscious  of 
unbroken  obedience  to  God  (Jn.  xi.  42).  On  one 
occasion  He  was  troubled  and  seemed  in  doubt  what 
to  ask  of  the  Father,  but  His  holy  purpose  did  not 
waver  (Jn.  xii.  27).  The  question  arose  within  Him 
whether  He  should  ask  the  Father  to  save  Him  from 


I98  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

the  approaching  suffering,  but  when  He  recognized 
that  the  Father  had  plainly  led  Him  to  this  suffering, 
He  said,  "Glorify  thy  name."  This  passage,  like  the 
Synoptic  scene  in  Gethsemane,  shows  the  working  of 
a  truly  human  mind,  but  a  mind  which  was  at  the 
same  time  ideal   in   its   loyalty   to  the  will  of  God. 

A  consciousness  of  perfect  moral  union  with  the 
Father  is  further  expressed  in  Jesus'  statement  that  He 
had  kept  the  Father's  commandment  (Jn.  xv.  10),  and 
had  accomplished  the  work  which  the  Father  had  given 
him  to  do  (Jn.  xvii.  4);  for  a  perfect  keeping  of  the 
Father's  commandment,  and  a  perfect  accomplishment 
of  the  Father's  work,  cannot  have  rested  upon  an  imper- 
fect moral  union  with  the  Father.  Here  belongs  also 
the  great  word  which  Jesus  spoke  concerning  the  func- 
tion of  the  Spirit,  that  He,  when  He  should  come, 
would  convince  the  world  in  regard  to  righteousness,  for 
the  context  shows  that  Jesus  has  in  mind  His  own  right- 
eousness (Jn.  xvi.  8-10).  The  sin  of  which  He  will  con- 
vince men,  is  the  sin  of  not  believing  in  Jesus  ;  the 
judgment  of  which  He  will  convince  them,  is  the  judg- 
ment which  they  are  to  share  with  the  prince  of  the 
world  because  like  him  they  are  opposed  to  Jesus.  In 
like  manner,  He  will  convince  the  world,  not  in  regard 
to  righteousness  in  the  abstract,  but  in  regard  to  the 
righteousness  of  Jesus,  His  perfect  righteousness  and 
consequently  the  truth  of  His  claim. 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  199 

Secondly,  there  is  a  large  class  of  passages  in  which 
Jesus  directly  affirms  a  unique  union  with  the  Father. 
These  passages  constitute  a  marked  feature  of  the 
fourth  Gospel.  They  are  such  a  lofty  expression  of  the 
claim  of  Jesus  that  on  two  occasions  they  caused  His 
enemies  to  bring  against  Him  the  charge  of  blasphemy 
(Jn.  v.  18;  x.  33).  The  fundamental  claim  is  contained 
in  the  words,  "  I  and  the  Father  are  one  "  (Jn.  x.  30). 
This  appears  in  various  forms,  as,  "  The  Father  in  me 
and  I  in  the  Father"  (Jn.  x.  38),  "  He  that  beholdeth 
me  beholdeth  Him  that  sent  me  "(Jn-  xn-  45)>  and,  "  He 
that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  "  (Jn.  xiv.  9). 
It  is  made  abundantly  plain  in  the  words  of  Jesus  Him- 
self that  this  union  with  the  Father  is  a  union  of  charac- 
ter, that  it  is  ethical  and  not  metaphysical.  This  is  the 
only  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  saying,  "  He  that 
hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  "  (Jn.  xii.  45  ;  xiv.  9). 
For  plainly  the  seeing  which  is  here  meant  is  not  physi- 
cal, for  the  Father  is  spirit  (Jn.  iv.  24),  and  as  such 
is  invisible  to  eyes  of  flesh.  This  seeing  is  denned  in 
part  in  Jn.  vi.  40,  where  Jesus  says,  "  Every  one  who 
beholdeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  Him  hath  eternal 
life."  "  Beholding  Him "  evidently  means  looking 
through  that  which  is  outward  and  material  to  that 
which  is  within  :  it  is  spiritual  apprehension.  The  Jews 
beheld  Jesus  and  His  works,  and  yet  they  did  not  be- 
hold the  real  Jesus,  the  spirit  and  character  of  the  man. 


200  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Therefore  in  the  passage  in  question,  Jesus  says  in  sub- 
stance, He  that  hath  seen  my  diameter  hath  seen  the 
Father. 

Again,  after  mentioning  His  words  and  works  which 
the  Jews  had  seen,  Jesus  said  that  they  had  seen  and 
hated  both  Him  and  His  Father  (Jn.  xv.  22,  24).  This 
can  mean  only  that  the  words  and  works  of  Jesus  mani- 
fested the  character  of  the  Father,  as  they  also  mani- 
fested the  character  of  Jesus;  and  consequently  to  hate 
these  words  and  works  was  to  hate  God.  Once  more, 
Jesus  indicates  that  His  union  with  the  Father  is  a  pure 
union  of  character  when  He  prays  that  His  apostles 
may  be  one  as  He  and  the  Father  are  one  (Jn.  xvii.  1 1), 
and  again  that  all  believers  may  be  one  "  even  as  Thou, 
Father,  art  in  me  and  I  in  Thee ;  that  they  also  may  be 
in  us"  (Jn.  xvii.  21).  And  then,  according  to  another 
verse,  this  unity  of  the  disciples  implies  that  Jesus  is  in 
them  and  the  Father  in  Him  (Jn.  xvii.  23).  Now  it  is 
obvious  that  the  union  of  the  disciples  which  Jesus 
brought  about  was  purely  ethical  and  religious.  They 
became  one  through  their  common  love  and  loyalty 
to  Him,  one  in  the  purpose  and  the  spirit  of  their 
lives.  This  is  the  only  sense  in  which  they  became 
one ;  and  the  language  of  Jesus  makes  this  unity  the 
exact  counterpart  of  His  union  with  the  Father.  It 
is  impossible,  therefore,  from  the  standpoint  of  Jesus, 
to   predicate   of   His   union   with   the   Father  anything 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  201 

which  cannot  be  predicated  of  the  ideal  union  of  His 
disciples. 

Finally,  Jesus  indicates  that  His  union  with  the 
Father  is  purely  ethical  when  He  represents  it  as 
ethically  conditioned.  Thus  Jesus  gives,  as  the  reason 
why  the  Father  is  with  Him,  the  fact  that  He  always 
does  the  things  which  are  pleasing  to  the  Father  (Jn. 
viii.  29).  The  same  truth  is  expressed  in  other  words 
when  He  says,  "  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye 
shall  abide  in  my  love,  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's 
commandments,  and  abide  in  His  love"  (Jn.  x.  17;  xv. 
10).  There  is  nowhere  a  suggestion  that  the  Father  is 
with  Him,  or  that  He  abides  in  the  Father,  because  He 
is  of  the  same  nature  or  substance  as  the  Father. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  oneness  of  Jesus 
with  the  Father,  as  far  as  we  can  learn  from  His 
words  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  is  a  oneness,  of  charac- 
ter. He  was  perfectly  obedient  to  the  Father,  and 
so  His  will  was  the  Father's  will  manifested  in  the 
flesh.  They  who  heard  His  words  heard  the  thought 
of  the  Father  perfectly  transmitted.  They  who  felt 
His  love,  felt  the  love  of  the  Father  in  its  most  ap- 
preciable, because  human,  form.  They  who  submitted  to 
His  will  thereby  became  submissive  to  the  will  of  the 
Father.  They  who  felt  themselves  quickened  under 
His  gracious  influence,  were  quickened  by  the  power  of 
the  Father  in  the  form  of  its  highest  potency. 


202  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

In  Jesus'    teaching    in  regard    to    His  own    person, 

according  to    the    fourth    Gospel,  the  most   prominent 

AT     .         fact    is     the    consciousness    of    McssiaJisJiip. 

c.  Messianic  J  r 

conscious-      This    consciousness    expresses   itself   in   the 

ness  in  the 

fourth  forms    which    are   found    in  the   Synoptists, 

Gospel.  mi         1 

i.  Messianic  and  in  still  others. 

We  meet  the  two  chief  Messianic  titles  of 
the  earlier  Gospels,  the  Son  of  man  and  the  Son  of  God, 
but  with  certain  noteworthy,  though  not  essential,  differ- 
ences. The  fourth  Gospel  uses  the  second  of  these  titles, 
either  in  the  full  form,  the  Son  of  God,  or  in  the  form,  the 
only  begotten  Son,  or  most  frequently,  in  the  abbreviated 
form,  the  Son,  much  oftener  than  do  the  Synoptists. 
It  is  still  used  in  a  Messianic  sense  both  by  Jesus  and 
by  others ;  but  in  some  passages,  where  Jesus  em- 
ploys it,  the  personal  relationship  of  love  between 
Him  and  the  Father  becomes  the  prominent  thought.1 
Jesus  plainly  uses  it  as  a  Messianic  title  in  Jn.  x.  33- 
36,  for  He  there  declares  that  it  is  applicable  to  Him 
because  of  the  high  commission  which  He  has  from 
the  Father ;  and  again  in  xi.  4  He  uses  it  in  the 
same  sense.  He  said  that  the  sickness  of  Lazarus 
was  in  order  that  the  Son  of  God  might  be  glorified, 
and  then,  at  the   tomb  of   Lazarus,   He   said   that  the 

1  Comp.  Beyschlag,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  i.  238;  Weiss.  Pib- 
lische  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments,  p.  612;  Stevens,  The  Johannivu 
Theology,  p.  124. 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  203 

object  of  His  audible  utterance  was  that  the  people 
might  believe  that  God  had  sent  Him,  or,  in  other 
words,  might  believe  that  He  was  the  Messiah  (Jn. 
xvii.  8).  Thus  the  Son  of  God  is  glorified  when  men 
believe  that  He  is  the  Messiah  ;  and  hence  this  term 
Messiah  might  be  substituted  for  the  Son  of  God  in 
xi.  4;  in  other  words,  Jesus  plainly  uses  the  term 
Son  of  God  as  a  Messianic  title. 

In  the  other  passages  where  Jesus  speaks  of  Him- 
self as  the  Son  or  as  the  only  begotten x  Son,  the  ethi- 
cal element  comes  to  the  front ;  but  this  unique  ethical 
union  with  God  is  the  basis  of  Messiahship,  and  Mes- 
siahship  is  inseparable  from  it.  But  there  is  nowhere 
an  intimation  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  as  there  is  not  in 
the  Synoptists,  that  the  term  is  used  in  any  other  than 
a  religious  or  a  Messianic  sense. 

What  I  have  said  thus  far  concerns  the  usage  of 
Jesus.  On  the  lips  of  others,  the  title  Son  of  God, 
in  the  fourth  Gospel,  has  an  exclusively  Messianic  sig- 
nificance, as  in  the  earlier  Gospels.  Thus  it  is  used 
by  the  Baptist  (Jn.  i.  34),  by  Nathanael  (Jn.  i.  49), 
by  Martha  (Jn.  xi.  27),  and  by  the  evangelist  (Jn. 
xx.  31).  Nathanael  employs  it  as  a  synonym  of  the 
Messianic  title,  King  of  Israel,  and  Martha  and  the 
evangelist  use  it  as  a  synonym  of  Christ. 

The    title    Son    of  man,  though    not   as    common   in 

1  It  seems  probable  that  this  epithet  belongs  to  the  author  of  the  Gospel. 


204  THE   REVELATION    OF  JESUS 

the  fourth  Gospel  as  in  the  Synoptists,  is  used  in  the 
same  sense.  It  is  Jesus'  own  self-designation,  and  is 
found  only  where  the  most  obviously  Messianic  func- 
tions are  affirmed.  Thus  the  Son  of  than  is  the  one 
who  has  unique  knowledge  of  the  Father  {e.g.  Jn. 
xvii.  25),  the  one  who  is  to  be  lifted  up  (Jn.  iii.  14; 
viii.  28 ;  xii.  32),  the  one  who  has  been  consecrated 
by  the  Father  (Jn.  x.  36),  the  one  who  must  be  person- 
ally appropriated  in  order  that  the  soul  may  have  life 
(e.g.  Jn.  vi.  53),  and  the  one  who  glorifies  God,  and  is 
Himself  glorified,  by  the  crucifixion  (Jn.  xii.  23,  28). 

One  passage  makes  the  meaning  of  the  title  espe- 
cially plain,  and  that  is  Jn.  ix.  35-38.  Here  Jesus 
asks  the  man  whom  He  had  healed  whether  he  be- 
lieved on  the  Son  of  man,  and  then  tells  him  that  He 
is  the  Son  of  man,  just  as  He  tells  the  Samaritan 
woman  that  He  is  the  Messiah  (Jn.  iv.  26).  It  is 
manifest  that  this  title  is  here  a  pure  synonym  of 
Messiah,  for  the  faith  which  Jesus  ever  sought  to 
win  was  faith  in  His  Messiahship,  and  nothing  else. 
When,  therefore,  Jesus  tells  one  receptive  soul  that 
He  is  the  Messiah,  and  another  that  He  is  the  Son 
of  man,  He  puts  it  absolutely  beyond  question  that 
the  terms  are  equivalent. 

2  The  can  The  Messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus  has 
ior  faith.  an  emphatic  expression  in  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel in  the  call  for  faith  in  Him.      In  the  Synoptists 


THE   PERSON   OF   JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  205 

this  call  is  implied  rather  than  expressed.  Jesus 
there  asks  for  faith  in  connection  with  His  miracles 
of  healing ;  but  that  is  faith  that  He  is  able  to 
work  the  miracle,  and  never  faith  that  He  is  the 
Messiah  (e.g.  Mt.  ix.  28).  A  call  to  accept  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah  is  doubtless  involved  in  His  whole  work, 
as  reported  by  the  Synoptists ;  and  we  see  a  company 
of  disciples  gather  around  Him,  who  come  gradually  to 
the  settled  conviction  that  He  is  the  Messiah  ;  but  the 
case  is  quite  different  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  Here 
believing  in  Him  as  the  Messiah  is  a  conspicuous 
feature.  The  belief  which  is  called  for  is  always 
belief  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  Thus,  when 
Nathanael  confesses,  "  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God, 
Thou  art  King  of  Israel,"  Jesus  replied,  "  Because 
I  said  unto  thee,  I  saw  thee  underneath  the  fig  tree, 
believest  thou  ? "  It  is  plain  that  the  unexpressed 
object  of  this  verb  is  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
which  Nathanael  had  just  confessed.  Again,  in  viii. 
24,  Jesus  makes  it  plain  what  He  wants  men  to  be- 
lieve. "  I  said  therefore  unto  you,  that  ye  shall  die 
in  your  sins ;  for  except  ye  believe  that  I  am  he,  ye 
shall  die  in  your  sins."  This  /  am  is  equivalent  to 
/  am  the  Messiah,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  conver- 
sation with  the  Samaritan  woman  (Jn.  iv.  25-26).  This 
is  the  one  great  truth  which  they  are  to  accept.  Jesus 
occasionally  speaks   of   believing   in   God,  but    only  in 


206  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

connection  with  belief  in  Him  whom  God  hath  sent 
(Jn.  v.  24;  xiv.  1).  This  faith  in  the  Messiah  is  the 
work  which  is  acceptable  to  God  (Jn.  vi.  29),  an  act 
on  which  Jesus  pronounces  a  beatitude  (Jn.  xx.  29). 
This  is  the  belief  which  He  puts  in  parallelism  with 
belief  in  God  (Jn.  xiv.  1).  It  is  so  vital  that  a  re- 
fusal to  cherish  it  constitutes  the  preeminent,  and,  as 
it  were,  the  only,  sin  (Jn.  xvi.  9).  This  lofty  claim 
that  men  should  believe  in  His  Messiahship  is  surely 
the  utterance  of  a  lofty  consciousness. 

Another  form  in  which  we  find  the  Messianic  con- 
sciousness expressed  in  the  fourth  Gospel  is  the  claim 

0  of    Tesus  that  He  came  not  of  Himself,  but 

3.  Sent  by  J  J  J 

the  Father.  was  senf  by  the  Father.  He  affirms  this 
directly  some  sixteen  times,  and  implies  it  in  yet 
other  passages  {e.g.  Jn.  vii.  28 ;  viii.  42 ;  v.  36, 
38).  In  order  to  understand  what  Jesus  means  by 
the  word  sent,  we  must  understand  His  meaning  in 
the  accompanying  clause  into  the  world.  This  mean- 
ing is  clear  from  a  passage  in  His  last  prayer,  where 
He  says,  "  As  Thou  didst  send  me  into  the  world,  I 
also  sent  them  into  the  world"  (Jn.  xvii.  18).  With 
this  we  may  take  His  word  to  the  disciples  after  the 
resurrection,  "  As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  so  send 
I  you"  (Jn.  xx.  21).  Now  it  is  plain  that  when 
Jesus  speaks  of  sending  His  disciples  into  the  world, 
He  does  not  refer  to  -their    coming    from    some    other 


THE    PERSON   OF   JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  207 

world  into  this  world.  The  sending  is  from  His  pres- 
ence, and  the  world  is  the  field  of  their  labors.  There- 
fore, when  Jesus  speaks  of  being  sent  from  the  Father, 
we  are  not  to  suppose  that  He  has  in  mind  a  change 
of  worlds,  or  a  change  in  the  form  of  His  existence ; 
but  simply  the  change  from  the  quiet  life  of  a  private 
citizen  in  Nazareth  to  the  public  Messianic  career  of 
preaching  and  establishing  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  reference  which  Jesus 
makes  to  a  sealing  and  a  consecration  which  preceded 
His  coming  into  the  world  (Jn.  vi.  27;  x.  36).  This 
consecration  by  the  Father  can  be  found  nowhere 
else  than  in  the  great  event,  recorded  by  all  the 
evangelists,  namely,  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  Jesus  in  the  hour  of  His  baptism,  and  the  divine 
announcement  which  separated  Him  unto  the  Messi- 
anic office,  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son ;  in  thee  I 
am  well  pleased  "  (Mk.  i.  10-11).  This  was  the  hour, 
according  to  the  Synoptists,  when  Jesus  became  con- 
scious of  His  Messianic  mission.  If,  then,  the  con- 
secration by  the  Father  was  in  the  hour  of  the  baptism 
of  Jesus,  and  if  this  consecration  was  prior  to  the  send- 
ing (Jn.  vi.  27  ;  x.  36),  it  is  plain  that  Jesus  could  not 
have  meant  by  the  expression  coming  into  the  world, 
or  being  sent  from  the  Father,  a  local  coming  from 
heaven  to  earth.  When  He  says  that  He  was  sent 
from  the  Father,  His  memory  goes  back  to  the  great 


208  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

hour  by  the  Jordan  when  the  voice  of  God  resounded 
in  His  soul,  saying,  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son ;  in 
thee  I  am  well  pleased."  Nazareth  was  then  left, 
and  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  accomplish  the  work 
of  the  Messiah. 

Parallel  to  being  sent  from  the  Father  is  the  state- 
ment of  Jesus,  repeated  on  several  occasions,  that 
4.  Come         He  came  forth  from    God  (Jn.  viii.  42 ;  xvi. 

forth  from  2g        ^    gx  jn     xyi>     2  g     WQ     h^yQ 

God,  come  '  '  '  ' 

from  heaven.  an  authoritative  suggestion  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  Jesus  when  He  says  that  He  came  forth 
from  God.  In  this  passage  He  declares  that  the 
Father  loves  the  disciples  because  they  have  loved 
Him  and  have  believed  that  He  came  forth  from 
God.  Now  we  know  very  well  what  Jesus  required 
men  to  believe  in  regard  to  Himself.  They  must 
believe  that  He  is  the  Messiah  {e.g.  Jn.  viii.  24). 
He  did  not  demand  belief  in  His  preexistence,  or  in 
any  other  relationship  to  the  Father  than  an  ethical 
one.  In  view,  then,  of  the  explicit  demand  of  Jesus 
for  faith  in  His  Messiahship,  and  in  view  of  the  patent 
meaning  of  the  expression  sent  from  God,  which  is 
similar  to  the  expression  in  question,  we  must  hold 
that  His  statement  of  having  come  forth  from  God 
is  not  an  assertion  regarding  His  nature,  but  regard- 
ing His  Messianic  commission.  This  interpretation  is 
illustrated  and  confirmed  by  the  words  of  Nicodemus, 


THE   PERSON   OF   JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  209 

who    says   for   himself    and    for    others    like    minded, 
"We  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from    God" 
(Jn.    hi.    2);    and   yet   when    he    used   this   language, 
he    believed  that  Jesus  was  a  man,  and  had  no  more 
thought  that  He  had  come  down  out  of  heaven  than 
that°John  the  Baptist    had    descended    from    the    sky. 
It  is  obvious  that,  on  his    lips,    the  words   come  from 
God,    as    applied   to    Jesus,    meant    simply  that   Jesus 
was  appointed    of    God,    as    Moses   and   the    prophets 
had  been.     There  is  no'  ground  for  a  different  under- 
standing of  the  words  when  they  are    used   by  Jesus. 
There   is   another    expression    of   the  fourth  Gospel 
which  is  to  be    mentioned    in   this   connection.     Jesus 
speaks   of    having   come   dozen   out  of  heaven   (Jn.    iii. 
13;    vi.    33,   38,    50,    51,   58),    and    also    of    being  from 
above,  and  not   of    this    world   (Jn.    viii.    23;  xvii.    14, 
16).     The  meaning  of  all  this  language  is  made  plain 
by    Jesus    Himself,  when    He    says   that    His  disciples 
also  are  not  of  this  world    even    as  He    is  not   of  tins 
world  (Jn.    xvii.    14,    i6>  and  when    He    says   to   the 
Jews,    "Ye    are    from    beneath;    I    am    from    above" 
(Jn.  'viii.  23 ;    comp.    xviii.    36).     When    he    says   that 
the    Jews    are   from    beneath,    He   evidently    does   not 
mean    that    they    have    come    up    to    the    surface    of 
the  earth  from  some  subterranean  abode:    He  simply 
characterizes    them    ethically.      In    like   manner,    the 
language   must  be  taken  ethically  when  He  says  that 


2IO  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

He  is  from  above.  And  if,  when  He  says  that  His 
disciples  are  not  of  this  world,  He  refers  to  charac- 
ter, so  must  He  also  when  He  says  that  He  is  not 
of  this  world.  The  language  has  no  reference,  then, 
to  His  origin.  He  is  from  above,  and  His  disciples 
are  from  above,  because  they  are  not  actuated  by 
the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

In  the  light  of  this  sure  result,  we  cannot  be  in  doubt 
as  to  the  meaning  of  Jesus  when  He  speaks  of  coming 
dozvn  out  of  heaven.  This  is  plainly  parallel  to  being 
from  above. 

It  is  easy  to  bring  the  claim  of  having  come  down 
out  of  heaven  into  connection  with  the  evangelist's 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  (Jn.  i.  1-5),  and  to  suppose  that 
it  means  a  personal  descent  out  of  heaven  ;  but  this 
interpretation  is  possible  only  when  we  take  a  super- 
ficial glance  at  the  words  in  question.  In  Jn.  hi.  13 
Jesus  says  to  Nicodemus,  "  No  one  has  ascended  into 
heaven  except  He  who  came  down  out  of  heaven,  the 
Son  of  man."  Plainly  we  must  understand  this  descent 
out  of  heaven  as  we  understand  the  ascent  into  heaven  ; 
but  when  Jesus  uttered  these  words,  He  certainly  had 
not  ascended  into  heaven  except  in  a  spiritual  sense  — 
the  sense  that  He  had  lived  in  personal  fellowship  with 
the  heavenly  Father.  Hence  the  descent  out  of  heaven 
must  be  figurative.  The  thought  seems  to  be  that  of 
perfect  communion  with  God,  as  when  Paul  says  that 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  211 

the  Lord  has  made  us  to  sit  in  heavenly  places  (Eph. 
ii.  6).  The  Scriptures  make  heaven,  in  a  peculiar 
sense,  the  abode  of  God,  and  hence  it  was  natural  to 
express  the  thought  of  immediate  fellowship  with  God 
by  the  figure  of  an  ascent  into  heaven.  Now  this 
thought  is  all  that  the  context  requires ;  and,  moreover, 
it  is  just  what  it  requires.  Jesus  can  declare  "  heavenly 
things,"  that  is,  Messianic  truths,1  because  He  stands 
in  perfect  fellowship  with  God.  If  He  had  said  that 
He  could  make  known  the  Messianic  truths  because 
He,  personally,  had  been  in  heaven,  His  conclusion 
would  have  been  too  great  for  His  premise.  An  angel 
might  have  come  down  out  of  heaven,  but  that  would 
not  have  fitted  him  to  declare  the  things  of  the  Messi- 
anic kingdom.  Jesus  gives  a  real  and  sufficient  ground 
for  His  authority  to  declare  Messianic  truths,  and  that 
is  His  perfect  communion  with  the  Father.  This  state- 
ment, then,  that  He  came  down  out  of  heaven,  like  the 
statement  that  He  was  from  above,  is  ethical. 

It  is  in  connection  with  the  Messianic  consciousness 
of  Jesus  that  we  must  understand  His  allusions  to  pre- 
existence.     These  allusions  constitute  a  fea- 

5.  Jesus' 

ture  of  that  consciousness  which  is  peculiar  thought  of 

._,  ,_.        „  .  preexistence. 

to  the  fourth  Gospel.    The  Synoptists  do  not 

1  See  Meyer's  Handbuch  iiber  das  Evangel? um  Jo/iamzes,  fiinfte  Auflage, 
p.  163.  The  argument  is  equally  strong  if  we  take  Holtzmann's  view  of 
the  "heavenly  things."  See  Hand-Conwientar,  vierter  Band,  erste 
Abtheilung,  p.  54. 


212  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

touch  this  point.  As  already  suggested,  it  is  with 
allusions,  not  with  a  clear  and  fixed  doctrine,  that  we 
have  to  do,  with  a  point  that,  even  in  John,  clearly 
belongs  to  the  incidental  rather  than  the  essential. 
Therefore  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  meaning 
of  these  allusions  —  and  there  are  wide  differences 
among  Christian  scholars  —  are  less  significant  than 
they  would  be  on  many  another  subject. 

The  first  passage  on  preexistence  is  Jn.  vi.  62, 
"What  then  if  ye  should  behold  the  Son  of  man  as- 
cending where  He  was  before?"1  In  the  preceding 
discourse  of  Jesus  two  words  had  given  offence.  He 
had  said  that  He  was  the  bread  which  had  come  down 
out  of  heaven,  and  also  that  it  was  needful  to  eat  the 
flesh  and  drink  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  man  in  order 
to  have  life.  He  solves  the  difficulty  of  this  last  word 
when  He  says,  in  verse  63  :  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quick- 
eneth :  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing.  The  words  that 
I  have  spoken  unto  you  are  spirit  and  are  life." 
It  is  the  difficulty  of  the  other  saying,  more  particu- 
larly, which  is  referred  to  in  verse  62.  The  statement 
that  He  had  come  down  out  of  heaven,  or,  dropping 
the  figure,  that  He  had  authority  from  God  to  give  life 
to  men,  would  be  justified,  Jesus  suggests,  by  his  ap- 
proaching ascension   into  heaven  (comp.   Jn.   xvi.    10). 

1  Wendt  (i.  244-248)  regards  this  saying  as  unhistorical  on  the  ground 
that  it  does  not  suit  the  context. 


THE    PERSON   OF  JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  213 

The  argument  is  not  perceptibly  changed  by  the  clause 
"where  He  was  before,"  and  hence  the  allusion  to  pre- 
existence  is  subordinate.  The  prominent  thought  is 
the  ascension. 

This  allusion  seems  to  be  most  naturally  explained 
with  the  aid  of  Dan.  vii.  13,  which  probably  fur- 
nished the  starting-point  for  Jesus'  use  of  the  title 
Son  of  num.  In  a  night  vision  Daniel  saw  one  like 
unto  a  son  of  man  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven. 
But  this  coming  from  heaven  does  not  assume  a  real 
preexistence  there,  any  more  than  the  fact  that  the 
four  beasts  of  this  same  vision  came  up  out  of  the 
sea  assumes  that  they  had  really  preexisted  in  the  sea 
(Dan.  vii.  3),  which  is  an  impossible  view,  for  Daniel 
says  that  the  four  beasts  are  four  kings  who  are  yet 
to  arise  upon  the  earth  (Dan.  vii.  17).  The  only 
preexistence,  therefore,  which  is  assumed  for  the  one 
like  a  son  of  man  who  comes  on  the  clouds  of  heaven, 
is  purely  ideal.  If  now  the  word  of  Jesus  in  Jn. 
vi.  62  was  spoken  in  view  of  the  passage  in  Daniel, 
we  should  be  justified  in  thinking  that  it  contem- 
plates the  same  sort  of  preexistence  which  we  have 
there.  Moreover,  this  result  is  confirmed  by  the  fact 
that  Jesus  speaks  of  the  Son  of  man  as  ascending 
where  He,  that  is  this  same  Son  of  man,  was  before ; 
but  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Mary,  and  His  humanity  is 
thought   of    as    derived,  not    as    preexistent.     So   it   is 


214  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

obvious  that  this  language  cannot  be  taken  literally. 
Therefore,  in  view  of  these  considerations,  I  conclude 
that  the  preexistence  alluded  to  in  this  passage  is  ideal, 
and  this  conclusion  will  be  greatly  reenforced  by  the 
other  passages  which  bear  upon  this  difficult  point. 

The  second  allusion  to  preexistence  is  the  word  of 
Jesus  in  the  temple,  "  Before  Abraham  was  born  I 
am"  (Jn.  viii.  58).  The  reference  to  Abraham  had 
been  made  natural  by  the  foregoing  controversy. 
When  Jesus  had  promised  freedom  through  the  truth, 
the  Jews  proudly  replied  that  they  were  children  of 
Abraham,  and  had  never  been  in  bondage.  Jesus 
allowed  their  claim  in  a  physical  sense,  but  denied  it 
in  the  spiritual  sense  (verses  37,  39-40).  They  were 
seeking  to  kill  Him,  He  said,  while  Abraham,  on  the 
contrary,  had  rejoiced  to  see  His  day.  These  words 
seemed  to  the  Jews  to  involve  a  preposterous  claim. 
They  inferred  that  if  Abraham  had  seen  the  day  of 
Jesus,  then  Jesus  must  claim  to  have  lived  at  least  as 
long  as  from  the  time  of  Abraham.  Hence  their 
contemptuous  question,  "Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years 
old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham  ? "  To  this  Jesus 
replied  in  words  which  involved  a  higher  claim 
than  that  which  they  had  just  attributed  to  Him,  and 
declared,   "  Before  Abraham  was  born   I  am." 

Now  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  it  is  Jesus  who 
is  speaking,  and  that,  in   the  preceding  verses,  He  has 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  21 5 

been  emphasizing  His  Messianic  claim.  He  does  not 
say  that  before  Abraham  was  born  the  Logos  existed ; 
He  says  "  I  am."  It  is  Jesus  the  Messiah,  Jesus  the 
man  whom  the  Father  had  consecrated  to  the  Mes- 
sianic work,  who  speaks.  Just  before  this  He  had 
spoken  of  "  my  day,"  which  Abraham  saw  (Jn.  viii. 
56),  by  which  we  must  understand  the  historical  ap- 
pearance of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  Abraham  had 
seen  this,  virtually  seen  it  in  God's  promise  of  a 
seed  (Gen.  xii.  3;  xv.  4-5),  and  had  greeted  it  from 
afar  (Heb.  xi.  13).  And  now  it  is  this  one  who  con- 
sciously realizes  the  distant  vision  of  Abraham,  who 
says,  "  Before  Abraham  was  born  I  am."  Jesus, 
therefore,  seems  to  affirm  that  His  Jiistoric  Messianic 
personality  existed  before  Abraham  was  born.  If 
that  be  the  case,  then  its  existence  before  Abraham 
must  of  course  be  thought  of  as  ideal. 

This  view  satisfies  the  context,  for  it  involves  the 
claim  of  a  dignity  and  an  importance  which  immeas- 
urably transcends  that  of  Abraham.  The  Jews  had 
asked  scornfully,  "  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father 
Abraham  ? "  and  the  words  of  the  reply  of  Jesus 
are  equal  to  a  lofty  affirmative.  They  imply  that 
His  work,  His  deliverance,  which  is  the  meaning  of 
His  day,  had  been  the  heart  of  God's  plan  from  the 
beginning  —  a  plan  which  embraced  Abraham  not  only, 
but  also  all  mankind.     The  Messiah  who  reveals  God 


2l6  THE    REVELATION    OF   JESUS 

and  redeems  the  world  cannot  properly  be  compared 
even  with  an  Abraham,  and  it  is  noticeable  that 
Jesus  does  not  make  a  comparison.  He  does  not  say, 
"  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  was,"  thus  simply 
affirming  priority ;  but  He  says,  "  I  am,"  an  expres- 
sion which  suggests  that  He  belongs  to  the  entire 
course  of  history,  if  it  does  not  certainly  reach  be- 
yond the  bounds  of  time.  The  projection  of  this 
present  I  am  into  the  remote  past  seems  to  imply  a 
conviction  on  the  part  of  Jesus  that  His  Messianic 
personality  is  above  time,  and  that  His  Messianic 
day  is  part  of  the  eternal  order  of  things. 

Strong  as  the  argument  seems  to  be  for  this  interpre- 
tation of  Jn.  viii.  58,  it  may  be  well  to  suspend  final 
judgment  upon  it  until  the  remaining  allusion  to  preex- 
istence  has  been  analyzed.  It  is  a  sound  principle  of 
exegesis  that  of  several  kindred  passages  the  more  ob- 
scure should  be  interpreted  by  the  less  obscure ;  and  of 
the  three  allusions  to  preexistence  made  by  Jesus  the 
last  is  the  clearest.  This  last  passage  is  found  in  the 
farewell  prayer,  and  reads  as  follows,  — "  Now,  O 
Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self  with  the 
glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was  " 
(Jn.  xvii.  5).  This  glory  seems  to  be  regarded  as 
a  reward  for  the  work  which  Jesus  had  now  accom- 
plished. He  says  in  the  preceding  verse  that  He  has 
glorified    God  on  the   earth,  having   accomplished   the 


THE   PERSON   OF   JESUS   THE    MESSIAH  21 7 

work  which  had  been  given  Him  to  do ;  and  now  He 
prays  that  the  Father  will  glorify  Him.     This  order  of 
thought  certainly  suggests  that  He  looks  at  the  antici- 
pated glory  as  His  proper  reward.     Moreover,  the  char- 
acter of  this  glory  establishes  the  view  that  it  is  indeed 
the  reward  for  the  Messianic  work.     We  have  the  fol- 
lowing data  for  the  determination  of  the  character  of 
this  glory.     Jesus  speaks  of  a  glory  which   He  has  al- 
ready received  (Jn.  xvii.    10,   22),   and   also  of    a  glory 
which  He  hopes  to  receive  in  the  future  (xvii.  1,  5,  24). 
Again,  with  regard  to  the  Father,  Jesus  speaks  of  hav- 
ing already  glorified  Him  (xvii.  4),  and  also  of  glorifying 
Him  in  the  future  (xvii.  1).     Now  in  all  these  passages 
the  glory  is  apparently  one  in  kind,  though  not  neces- 
sarily the  same  in  degree.     There  is  no  suggestion  that 
the  words  glory  and  glorify    have    a    peculiar   content 
when  Jesus  is  speaking  of  the  future —  a  content  essen- 
tially  different   from    that  which    they  have  when  He 
speaks  of  the  past.     Moreover,  there  is  no  need  of  mak- 
ing such  an  assumption  in  order  to  a  clear  and  harmo- 
nious interpretation  of  the  chapter.     Therefore  we  must 
hold  that  the  words  glory  and  glorify,  as  used  in  this 
passage,  now  of  the  past  work  of  Jesus  and  again  of 
His  future  state  and  activity,  have  the  same  essential 
meaning.     But  this  meaning,  when  Jesus  refers  to  the 
past,  is  put  beyond  question  by  the  language  of  Jesus 
Himself :  it  is  the  glory  of  redemption.     He  has  glori- 


2l8  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

fiefl  the  Father  on  the  earth  by  accomplishing  His  work 
(xvii.  4),  that  is,  the  Messianic  work.  He  has  mani- 
fested the  Father's  name  to  His  disciples  (xvii.  6),  or 
has  given  them  the  Father's  word  (xvii.  14).  And  this 
is  also  the  way  in  which  He  will  glorify  the  Father  in 
the  future,  for  He  says  that  He  will  still  make  the 
Father's  name  known  (xvii.  26),  and  give  eternal  life  to 
all  whom  the  Father  shall  give  to  Him  (xvii.  2).  Thus 
the  glorification  of  the  Father  of  which  Jesus  speaks 
in  this  chapter  is  surely  accomplished  by  the  Messianic 
work  of  Jesus,  as  He  makes  the  Father  known,  and 
through  their  faith  in  Him  brings  men  into  the  love  of 
the  Father  and  gives  to  them  eternal  life.  This  is  the 
past  glorification  of  the  Father  and  it  is  also  His  future 
glorification. 

Now  in  regard  to  the  past  glorification  of  Jesus,  of 
which  the  chapter  speaks,  we  are  not  left  in  doubt. 
Jesus  says  that  He  is  already  glorified  in  His  disciples 
(xvii.  10),  and  He  indicates  in  what  this  glorification 
consists.  He  is  glorified  in  them  because  they  have 
recognized  Him  as  the  Messiah,  and  have  given  their 
allegiance  to  Him  (xvii.  8).  This  glory  which  Jesus 
has  received  from  His  disciples  may  be  said  to  have 
been  given  to  Him  by  the  Father  (xvii.  22),  because 
the  Father  gave  to  Jesus  that  revelation  through  which 
Jesus  had  brought  men  to  accept  Him  as  the  Messiah, 
sent  from  God  (xvii.  7). 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  219 

Now  from  that  which  is  clearly  defined  we  proceed, 
and  proceed  safely,  to  that  which  is  less  clearly  defined. 
The  glory  which  Jesus  has  already  received  is,  as  the 
chapter  plainly  teaches,  the  glory  of  having  been 
recognized  as  the  Messiah.  It  is  the  glory  of  having 
established  the  Messianic  kingdom.  Therefore  we 
must  say  that  the  glory  for  which  He  prays  (xvii.  5), 
and  which  He  anticipates  receiving  in  heaven  (xvii.  24), 
is  of  the  same  sort,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  the  glory  of 
doing  Messianic  work  and  of  being  recognized  as  the 
Messiah.  It  may  differ  vastly  in  degree  from  that 
glory  which  He  has  already  received,  but  not  in  kind. 
One  glory  is  the  glory  of  beginning  the  kingdom  ;  the 
other  is  the  glory  of  completing  the  kingdom. 

This  important  conclusion  touching  the  glory  for 
which  Jesus  prays  is  variously  confirmed.  The  fact 
that  the  future  glorification  of  the  Father  in  this 
chapter  is  of  the  same  sort  as  His  past  glorification, 
which  we  have  seen  to  be  the  case,  makes  it  natural 
to  hold  that  the  future  glorification  of  the  Son  is 
thought  of  as  being  of  the  same  sort  as  His  past  glorifi- 
cation. Not  only  so  ;  but  the  future  glorification  of  the 
Father  depends  upon  the  future  glorification  of  the 
Son  (xvii.  1 ).  Now  since  this  future  glorification  of 
the  Father  depends  upon  the  future  glorification  of 
the  Son  ;  and  since  the  past  glorification  of  the  Father 
depended  upon  the    Messianic  work  of  Jesus,  we  are 


220  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

fully  justified  in  the  position  that  the  future  glorification 
of  the  Son,  which  is  to  promote  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  will  consist  in  the  continuation  and  completion 
of  His  Messianic  work.  It  is  for  this,  then,  that  Jesus 
prays. 

This  conclusion  is  made  still  more  certain,  if  possible, 
by  words  which  Jesus  spoke  earlier  in  the  last  week. 
He  referred  to  the  hour  of  His  crucifixion  as  the  hour 
of  His  glorification  (Jn.  xii.  23),  and  also  as  the  hour 
when  the  name  of  His  Father  would  be  glorified  (Jn. 
xii.  28).  Now  the  hour  of  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  was 
the  hour  of  His  glorification,  according  to  the  fourth 
Gospel,  because  by  the  events  of  this  hour  Jesus  was 
most  manifestly  revealed  as  the  Messiah.  He  regarded 
His  crucifixion  as  the  supreme  act  of  self-revelation 
(Jn.  viii.  28).  For  this  reason,  He  could  say  that  His 
lif ting-up  was  to  be  the  great  motive  to  draw  men  unto 
Him  (Jn.  xii.  32).  Thus  Jesus,  on  this  occasion, 
thought  of  the  culminating  act  of  His  Messianic  work 
upon  earth  as  a  future  glorification,  and  He  prayed  to 
the  Father  in  regard  to  this  glory  (Jn.  xii.  28).  There- 
fore, when,  a  few  days  later,  we  hear  Him  praying 
again  for  a  future  glorification  of  Himself,  which  future 
glorification  is  not  directly  described,  we  are  compelled 
to  believe  that  His  thought  is  upon  the  consummation 
of  His  work. 

Therefore  we   hold   as  a  fixed   and   unshakable   con- 


THE    PERSON   OF   JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  221 

elusion,  that  the  glory  for  which  Jesus  prays  in  the 
seventeenth  chapter  of  John  is  of  the  same  sort  as 
that  glory  which  He  had  already  received  (xvii.  10,  22). 
It  is  the  glory  of  being  recognized  and  loved  as  the 
Messiah.  He  prays  for  the  divine  consummation  of 
the  great  work  which  He  has  begun.  He  has  re- 
ceived a  foretaste  of  that  glory,  and  He  prays  for  its 
fulness. 

Having  now  shown  that  the  glory  for  which  Jesus 
prays  is  the  fruition  of  His  Messianic  work,  or  the 
reward  for  that  work,  it  follows  that  He  cannot 
have  possessed  this  with  the  Father  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world,  except  as  it  was  His  in  the  pur- 
pose and  decree  of  God  (comp.  Mt.  xxv.  34).  Rewards 
are  bestowed  after  the  work  is  done,  and  then  only 
can  be  appreciated  as  rewards.  Jesus  possessed  this 
glory  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  in  the  sense 
that  it  was  divinely  purposed  for  Him.  He  knew  that 
His  Messianic  work  had  been  planned  of  God  from 
eternity,  and  that  the  glorious  outcome  of  it  had  been 
fixed,  and  was  kept  in  store  for  Him. 

Thus  in  the  very  shadow  of  the  cross,  when  to 
human  view  the  work  of  Jesus  seemed  to  be  a  com- 
plete and'  shameful  failure,  He  calmly  and  confidently 
asks  for  the  glory  which  He  had  with  the  Father 
before  the  world  was.  This  is  surely  the  utterance 
of  one  who  was  conscious  of   being  the   Messiah  sent 


222  THE    REVELATION    OF   JESUS 

from  God  ;  but  the  preexistence  which  is  involved  is 
simply  and  only  ideal.  The  glory  of  completed  re- 
demption cannot  be  literally  possessed  until  redemp- 
tion is  complete.  If  now  the  preexistence  of  Jesus, 
according  to  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  John,  is 
clearly  ideal,  this  fact  confirms  the  interpretation 
which  has  been  given  of  the  other  passages  which 
are  less  clear.  We  conclude,  then,  that  these  three 
passages  in  John,  in  which  Jesus  alludes  to  His  pre- 
existence, do  not  involve  the  claim  that  this  preexist- 
ence was  personal  and  real.  They  are  to  be  classed 
with  the  other  phenomena  of  the  Messianic  conscious- 
ness of  Jesus,  none  of  which,  either  in  the  Synoptists 
or  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  have  to  do  with  metaphysi- 
cal relationships. 

This  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  Jesus' 
allusions  to  preexistence  is  in  line  with  the  fact  that 
neither  the  Old  Testament  nor  other  Jewish  writ- 
ings, prior  to  the  time  of  Jesus,  know  anything  of  a 
personal  preexistence  of  the  Messiah.  When  the 
conception  of  the  Messiah  was  individualized  by  the 
people  of  the  Old  Covenant,  He  was  usually  thought 
of  as  a  descendant  of  David  (see  Hos.  hi.  5  ;  Amos 
ix.  11;  Is.  ix.  7  ;  xi.  1  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5  ;  Zech.  xiii.  1  ;  Mic. 
v.  2;  Ps.  lxxix.  20-21;  cxxxii.  io-u),  though  this  de- 
scent may  not  always  have  been  understood  literally  ; 1 

1  See  Cheyne,  Jewish  Religious  Life  after  the  Exile,  p.  47. 


THE   PERSON   OF   JESUS   THE   MESSIAH  223 

and  whether  as  a  literal  descendant  of  David  or 
not,  He  was  invariably  thought  of  as  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed earthly  ruler  and  deliverer.  The  glowing 
language  of  Isaiah  (vii.  14  ,  ix.  6)  cannot  be  regarded 
as  presenting  a  conception  of  the  Messiah  funda- 
mentally different  from  that  of  other  Old  Testament 
writers  both  earlier  and  later,  which  is  the  case  when 
it  is  understood  metaphysically ;  but  it  must  be 
regarded  as  in  line  with  Jesus'  use  of  Ps.  lxxxii.  6, 
that  is,  as  an  exalted  description  of  one  who  was 
to  be  the  supreme  and  final  representative  of  Jeho- 
vah for  the  deliverance  and  perfecting  of  His  people.1 
When  Micah  speaks  of  Him  who  is  to  be  ruler  in 
Israel  as  one  whose  "  goings  forth  "  are  from  "  ancient 
days"  (v.  2),  he  marks  Him  as  one  who  comes 
from  an  old  and  illustrious  lineage.  It  is  manifest 
that  his  thought  does  not  go  beyond  an  earthly 
ruler  clothed  with  divine  authority,  for  he  speaks 
of  the  coming  deliverer  as  one  who  will  stand  and 
feed    his    flock    in    the    name    of   the    Lord   his    God 

(v.  4). 

Likewise  in  later  pre-Christian  Jewish  writings, 
though  the  idea  of  preexistence  begins  to  appear,  it 
is  only  an  ideal  preexistence.      The  Sibylline  Oracles 

1  Comp.  Schultz,  Altlestamentliche  Theologie,  pp.  772-773;  Cheyne, 
The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  3d  ed.,  i.  61-62;  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy, 
pp.  195-201. 


224  THE   REVELATION    OF   JESUS 

and  the  earlier  part  of  Enoch  know  only  of  a  divinely 
sent  king,  sprung  from  the  purified  people  of  God.1 
In  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  the  Messiah  is  a  righteous 
king,  the  son  of  David,  but  without  a  trace  of  pre- 
existence.2  In  the  Parables  of  Enoch,  which  probably 
antedate  the  life  of  Jesus,3  it  is  said  that  the  name 
of  the  Son  of  man  was  called  before  the  Lord  of  the 
spirits,  before  the  stars  were  made,  and  that  this  Son 
of  man  was  chosen  and  hidden  before  the  Lord, 
before  the  creation  of  the  world.  Here  is,  indeed, 
the  idea  of  preexistence,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
author  thought  of  this  as  real  and  personal.  In 
the  Assumption  of  Moses,  which  belongs  to  the  same 
period  with  the  Parables  of  Enoch,  even  Moses  is 
represented  as  saying,  "The  Lord  prepared  me 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  to  be  the  medi- 
ator of  His  covenant"  (i.  14);  but  it  is  not  probable 
that  the  author  thought  of  a  personal  preexistence  of 
Moses.  The  origin  of  a  belief  in  personal  preexistence 
is  later  than  the  time  of  Christ.4  But  if  preexistence 
in  the  Assumption  of  Moses  is  ideal,  that  is  a  reason 
why  we  should  understand  it  in  an  ideal  sense  in  the 
Parables  of  Enoch. 

1  See  Or.  Sib.  iii.  652  f.;  Enoch  xc.  37;  Hilgenfeld,  Die  jiidische 
Apokalyptik,  p.  143.        2  See  Ps.  xvii. 

8  See  Charles,  7'he  Book  of  Enoch,  pp.  11 3-1 15. 

4  See  Stanton,  The  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Messiah,  p.  131;  Weber, 
Die  Lehren  des  Talmuds,  pp.  340-341. 


THE   PERSON   OF  JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  225 

Since  then  the  Old  Testament  conception  of  the 
Messiah  is  opposed  to  the  thought  of  personal  pre- 
existence,  and  since  other  Jewish  writings  of  pre- 
Christian  date  have  no  clear  reference  to  personal 
preexistence,  we  conclude  that  there  is  no  historical 
reason  for  doubting  the  position  taken  in  regard  to 
the  teaching  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 

The  last  expression  of  a  Messianic  consciousness 
which  we  have  to  consider  in  the  fourth  Gospel  is  the 
fact   that  Jesus   accepted  worship    from    the 

^  y  6.  Jesus 

man  whose  eyes  He  had  opened  (Jn.  ix.  38),   accepts 

worship. 

and  allowed  Thomas  to  address  Him  as  Lord 
and  God  (Jn.  xx.  28).  In  the  case  of  the  man  in  the 
temple  the  homage  is  plainly  paid  to  Jesus  as  Mes- 
siah. Jesus  asked  the  unnamed  person  if  he  believed 
in  the  Son  of  man,  that  is,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Mes- 
siah ;  and  when  the  man  replied,  "  Who  is  he,  Lord, 
that  I  may  believe  on  him,"  Jesus  said,  "  Thou  hast 
both  seen  him,  and  he  it  is  that  speaketh  with  thee." 
Then  the  man,  believing  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
did  Him  reverence.  It  does  not  follow  from  this  that 
he  regarded  Jesus  as  of  the  same  nature  with  God. 
The  term  which  is  translated  worship  is  used  of  the 
homage  which  subjects  pay  to  their  sovereign,  and 
simply  implies  that  the  one  who  receives  it  is  of  a 
dignity  superior  to  that  of  the  one  who  renders  it 
(comp.  Rev.  xxii.  8).  The  word  implies  nothing  in 
Q 


226  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

regard  to  the  nature  of  the  one  who  receives  the  hom- 
age. The  man  worshipped  Jesus  because  he  believed 
Him  to  be  the  Messiah  of  his  people ;  and  Jesus 
accepted  the  homage  because  He  was  conscious  of 
being  the  Messiah. 

In  the  other  passage,  we  are  told  that  Thomas  ad- 
dressed the  risen  Jesus  as  Lord  and  God,  and  it  is 
implied  that  Jesus  accepted  this  homage.  Then  He 
said  to  Thomas,  "  Because  thou  hast  seen  me,  thou 
hast  believed;  blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen, 
and  yet  have  believed  "  (Jn.  xx.  29).  Now  we  know 
what  belief  Jesus  sought  from  men,  according  to  the 
fourth  Gospel.  It  was  belief  in  Him  as  the  Messiah. 
When,  therefore,  He  said  to  Thomas,  "  Because  thou 
hast  seen  me,  thou  hast  believed,"  that  meant  simply 
and  only,  Because  thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast  be- 
lieved that  /  am  the  Messiah.  It  appears,  then,  that 
Jesus  accepted  the  homage  of  Thomas  as  homage 
rendered  to  His  Messiahship.  His  language  seems  to 
imply  that  any  one  who  believed  in  Him  as  the  Mes- 
siah might  be  expected  to  adore  Him.  There  is  no 
suggestion  that  He  regarded  the  homage  as  implying 
that  He  was   of   the  same  substance  with  the  Father. 

Now  we  shall  go  safely  if  we  argue  from  Jesus: 
acceptance  of  the  homage  to  the  thought  of  Thomas 
when  he  said,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God."  If  we  do 
so  argue,  we  shall  conclude   that  Thomas   was   in  the 


THE   PERSON   OF   JESUS  THE   MESSIAH  227 

same  spiritual  condition  as  the  man  who  worshipped 
Jesus  in  the  temple  (Jn.  ix.  38),  and  like  him  recog- 
nized Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  But  if  his  adoration  was 
for  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  then  it  is  wrong  to  treat  his 
language  as  a  theological  statement  regarding  the 
nature  of  Jesus.  It  is  impossible  to  say  that  when 
this  Jew  addressed  Jesus  as  my  God,  his  thought  was 
that  of  the  theologians  of  the  fourth  century,  who 
said  of  Jesus,  "  Deus  ex  substantia  Patris." i  Since 
Jesus  Himself  justified  that  Scripture  which  calls  men 
gods  on  the  ground  that  they  represent  God  (Jn.  x. 
35),  and  since  He  once  bases  His  claim  to  the  title 
Son  of  God  upon  the  fact  that  He  has  been  conse- 
crated by  the  Father  to  the  Messianic  work  (Jn.  x.  36), 
it  is  plainly  wrong  to  regard  the  language  of  Thomas 
as  an  affirmation  regarding  the  essential  being  of 
Jesus.  Thomas  is  ocularly  convinced  that  Jesus  is 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  so  is  convinced  that  He  is 
the  Messiah,  and  as  the  Messiah  he  worships  Him. 
Jesus  accepts  the  worship  because  He  is  conscious  of 
Messiahship.  But  the  fact  that  Thomas  calls  Him 
God,  judged  by  the  standard  which  is  set  for  us  in 
the  usage  of  Jesus  Himself,  cannot  be  held  to  in- 
volve anything  more  than  a  recognition  of  the  office, 
the  commission,  the  divine  authority,  and  function  of 
Jesus. 

1  See  Symbolum  Quicunque,  31. 


228  THE    REVELATION    OF   JESUS 

It  may  be  remarked,  in  conclusion,  that  this  interpre- 
tation is  in  harmony  with  the  expressed  purpose  of 
the  evangelist,  which  was  to  prove  that  Jesus  was 
the  Christ  (Jn.  xx.  31).  He  does  not  set  out  to  prove 
that  Jesus  is  of  the  same  nature  as  the  Father,  but 
to  prove  that  He  is  the  one  anointed  of  the  Father  to 
give  eternal  life  to  men.  Therefore,  he  appropriately 
closes  his  Gospel  with  the  scene  in  which  Thomas 
adores  the  Messiah. 

This  interpretation  is  also  in  harmony  with  the  fact 
of  the  human  consciousness  of  Jesus,  which  is  evi- 
denced throughout  the  entire  Gospel;  in  harmony 
with  the  fact  of  Jesus'  consciousness  of  absolute 
moral  union  with  the  Father,  which  is  manifest 
throughout  the  entire  Gospel  —  a  consciousness  that 
uttered  itself  in  such  a  word  as  "  I  and  the  Father 
are  one ;  "  and  it  is  in  harmony,  finally,  with  the  fact 
of  His  Messianic  consciousness. 

Jesus  as  the  Messiah  is  the*  perfect  revealer  of  the 
Father,  the  perfect  representative  of  the  Father,  the 
perfect  redeemer  of  those  who  accept  Him,  and  He 
is,  therefore,  infinitely  worthy  of  the  adoration  and 
worship  of  all  mankind. 


CHAPTER   VI 

The  Messiah's  Earthly  Work 

As  the  purpose  of  any  man  may  be  inferred  from 
his  work,  so  we  may  infer  the  purpose  of  Jesus  from 
His  work  ;    but  we  are  not   now  concerned  T   _ 

I.   The  pur- 

with   possible   inferences.      We    are    asking  pose  of  the 

Messiah. 

rather  after  the  direct  and  positive  teaching  a.  in  the 

r   t  i  tttx-  tr         •  i      r    tt-  Synoptists. 

of  Jesus:  what  He  Himself  said  of  His  pur- 
pose, and  how  He  sought  to  achieve  it.  According 
to  the  Synoptic  Gospels  the  Messianic  consciousness 
of  Jesus  dated  from  the  hour  of  His  baptism,  and  by 
the  meditation  and  temptation  in  the  wilderness  He 
adjusted  His  thought  to  the  new  consciousness.  He 
came  forth  from  the  wilderness,  and  for  a  little  more 
than  two  years  engaged  in  public  work,  which  clearly 
had  as  its  sole  aim  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  We  cannot  go  back  of  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  and  speak  of  the  purpose  which  actuated  Him 
in  the  earlier  years  of  His  private  life,  except  to  say 
that  the  purpose  of  the  boy  Jesus,  to  be  about  the 
things  of  His  Father  (Lk.  ii.  49),  was  doubtless 
the    purpose   of    the   youth    and    the    man.      We    are 

229 


230  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

sure  as  we  look  at  the  public  life  of  Jesus,  that  in 
His  earlier  private  life  His  deepest  concern  had  been 
to  please  God,  and  day  by  day  to  follow  perfectly 
the  guidance  of  His  Spirit.  But  we  know  of  no 
other  plan  or  life-purpose  which  He  had  at  that  time. 
When,  however,  the  consciousness  of  Messiahship  had 
been  divinely  awakened  within  him,  immediately  His 
life  came  entirely  under  the  sway  of  the  great  pur- 
pose which  that  Messianic  consciousness  called  forth, 
namely,  the  purpose  to  do  the  work  of  the  Messiah 
as  God  should  make  it  known  to  Him.  All  His  time 
and  all  His  energies  were  henceforth  consecrated  to 
this  single  end. 

And  the  work  of  the  Messiah,  the  work  of  His 
earthly  life,  as  Jesus  regarded  it,  was  the  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  the  realization 
among  men  of  that  ideal  relationship  to  God  of 
which  He  was  conscious  in  His  own  soul.  It  was 
this  which  He  constantly  preached,  and  for  the 
coming  of  this  He  taught  His  disciples  to  pray. 
Sometimes  Jesus  speaks  of  the  aim  of  His  mission 
in  more  specific,  or  in  narrower,  terms  than  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Thus  it  is 
to  call  sinners  to  repentance  (Mk.  ii.  17;  Lk.  v. 
32),  or  to  fulfil  the  Law  and  the  prophets  (Mt.  v.  17). 
Again,  it  is  to  sow  the  good  seed  (Mt.  xiii.  37),  to 
preach    the    acceptable    year    of    the    Lord    (Lk.    lv. 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  23 1 

19),  to  induce  men  to  choose  the  one  thing  needful 
(Lk.  x.  42),  to  give  rest  to  those  who  labor  and  are 
heavy  laden  (Mt.  xi.  28),  and  to  give  His  life  a 
ransom  for  many  (Mk.  x.  45).  But  all  these  ends 
are  subordinate  to  the  establishment  of  the  reign  of 
God  in  the  heart  of  man. 

The  Messianic  purpose  is  differently  stated  in  the 
fourth  Gospel,  but  the  difference  is  formal  rather 
than  essential.     We  find  it,  for  example,  in  ,  ,    , 

1  b.   In  the 

the  word    of   Jesus   in    the   allegory    of   the  fourth 

Gospel. 

Good  Shepherd,  "  I  came  that  they  may 
have  life  and  may  have  it  abundantly"  (Jn.  x.  10). 
Other  closely  related  terms  are  incidentally  employed. 
Thus,  Jesus  came  to  save  the  world  (Jn.  v.  34;  xii. 
47).  He  came  to  give  men  the  truth  (Jn.  viii. 
31-32;  xviii.  37);  to  give  them  the  glory  which  the 
Father  had  given  to  Him,  that  is,  the  name  of  the 
Father  (Jn.  xvii.  5-6).  But  the  characteristic  desig- 
nation of  the  aim  of  His  mission  is  to  give  life  {e.g. 
Jn.  hi.  15;  v.  40;  vi.  33;  viii.  12;  xi.  25;  xvii.  3). 
The  conception  of  eternal  life  which  we  find  in 
the  fourth  Gospel  is  narrower  than  the  conception 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  I  have  indicated  in  an- 
other connection.  It  has  a  close  correspondence  to 
the  first  meaning  of  that  term  in  the  Synoptists, 
namely,  the  reign  of  God  in  the  heart.  That  is  life, 
eternal   life.     But,   as  we    have   seen,    the   term   king- 


232  THE    REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

dom  of  heaven  has  other  meanings  than  that  of  a 
divine  reign  in  the  heart,  and  to  these  other  mean- 
ings the  conception  of  eternal  life  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  not  akin. 

This  life  which  it  is  the  purpose  of  Christ  to  give 
is  prevailingly  thought  of  in  the  fourth  Gospel  as  a 
present  possession,1  while  eternal  life  in  the  Synoptists 
is  always  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  future  age 
(e.g.  Mk.  x.  30;  Mt.  vii.  14;  xxv.  46).  The  idea 
that  the  believer  has  eternal  life  even  now  is  neces- 
sarily involved  in  Jesus'  conception  of  that  life,  ac- 
cording to  the  fourth  Gospel.  He  always  associates 
it  with  His  own  person,  and  regards  it  as  resulting 
from  the  appropriation  of  Himself  by  faith.  Thus 
He  says:  "  I  am  the  bread  of  life"  (Jn.  vi.  48);  "I 
am  the  living  bread"  (Jn.  vi.  51);  "  He  that  eateth 
my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  eternal  life " 
(Jn.  vi.  54);  "  He  that  eateth  me,  he  also  shall  live 
because  of  me"  (Jn.  vi.  57);  "I  am  the  life"  (Jn.  xi. 
25).  The  Father  has  given  Him  authority  to  have 
life  in  Himself  (Jn.  v.  26),  and  this  life  is  com- 
municated through  a  personal  relation  in  which  Jesus 
and  His  disciples  become  one  (Jn.  vi.  56;  xv.  4; 
xvii.  23).  Such  a  relation  is  implied  in  eating  Him, 
or  abiding  in  Him  as  the  branch  abides  in  the  vine. 
It   is   manifest,    then,    that    eternal    life    becomes   the 

1  It  is  referred  to  the  future  in  Jn.  iv.  14;   vi.  27;  xii.  25. 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  233 

possession  of  a  soul  when  Jesus  is  accepted,  and 
therefore  it  is  spoken  of  as  something  which  the  be- 
liever has  here  and  now.  Were  this  not  the  case, 
then  the  Messianic  purpose,  according  to  the  fourth 
Gospel,  would  be  a  purpose  whose  realization  be- 
longs to  the  future  age.  But  since  the  Messianic 
purpose  is  stated  by  John  as  the  purpose  to  give  a 
present  life,  it  is  manifestly  the  same  purpose  that 
is  involved  in  the  Synoptic  expression  of  a  present 
heavenly  kingdom.  The  Synoptic  expression  of  the 
Messianic  purpose,  however,  gives  a  certain  promi- 
nence to  God,  and  the  Johannean  expression  gives 
an  equal  prominence  to  the  Messiah. 

Jesus  began  to  realize  the  Messianic  ideal  by  teach- 
ing.    He  came  not   as   the   Jews    had   expected,  with 
outward    pomp    and    military  power,   but   as   n   The 
a    herald    and    teacher.       He    appeared   in  Messianic 

purpose 

Galilee  calling  men  to  repentance  and  faith   realized  by 

t63.cliin£. 

in  the  Gospel  (Mk.  i.  15).  He  taught  in  a.  in  the 
the  synagogues  (Mk.  i.  21).  When  He  left  syn°Ptists- 
Capernaum,  after  His  first  activity  there,  He  told 
His  disciples  that  He  must  go  to  the  other  villages, 
to  preach  there  also  (Mk.  i.  38).  According  to  Mark, 
He  had  come  forth  from  Capernaum  in  order  to 
preach  elsewhere;  while,  in  Luke,  this  was  the  pur- 
pose for  which  He  had  been  sent,  that  is,  the 
purpose   of    His   life  as  a  whole.     Of   these   two   ver- 


234  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

sion?  of  the  word  of  Jesus,  Mark's  is  probably  the 
historical  one;  but  the  broader  idea  of  Luke  is  surely 
in  accord  with  the  manifest   aim  of   the  life  of  Jesus. 

Again,  the  Synoptic  report  repeatedly  summarizes  the 
tours  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  as  tours  of  preaching,  or  of 
preaching  and  healing  (Mk.  i.  21;  vi.  6;  Mt.  iv.  23). 
When  He  went  from  Galilee  into  Perea,  Mark  says  that, 
as  his  custom  was,  He  taught  the  people  (Mk.  x.  1). 
When  He  came  to  Jerusalem,  He  taught  in  the  temple, 
and  at  the  time  of  His  arrest,  He  rebuked  those  who 
came  against  Him  as  against  a  robber,  with  the  words, 
"  I  sat  daily  in  the  temple  teaching,  and  ye  took  me 
not"  (Mt.  xxvi.  55).  Jesus  represents  the  unfaithful  as 
saying,  at  the  last  day,  "  We  did  eat  and  drink  in  thy 
presence,  and  thou  didst  teach  in  our  streets  "  (Lk.  xiii. 
26).  Thus  He  seems  to  have  regarded  teaching  as  His 
primary  and  fundamental  work.  In  harmony  with  this 
fact,  we  find  that  His  disciples  and  people  in  general 
most  commonly  addressed  Him  as  teacher  or  rabbi 
{e.g.   Mt.  viii.    19;    xii.   38;    Jn.  i.   38,  49;    iv.   31). 

Jesus  never  put  His  miracles  by  the  side  of  His 
teaching,  as  though  they  were  coordinate  with  it.  As 
we  have  shown  elsewhere,  Jesus  subordinated  miracles 
to  teaching.  They  were  a  proof  of  His  Messianic 
claim,  but  in  themselves  they  involved  no  teaching 
in  regard  to  God  which  was  not  contained  in  the 
miracles    of   the    prophets.      The    distinctive    religious 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY    WORK  235 

message  of  Jesus  to  the  world  was  not  expressed 
through  His  miraculous  works.  These  works,  how- 
ever, since  they  confirmed  the  Messianic  claim  of 
Jesus,  were  of  course  of  great  value,  and  Jesus  could 
say  to  the  lake-cities,  that  because  His  mighty  works 
had  not  led  them  to  repentance,  their  fate  should  be 
less  tolerable  than  that  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
(Mt.  xi.  20-24).  They  had  seen  these  works,  and 
could  not,  without  wilful  hostility  to  the  truth,  deny 
that  they  were  proofs  of  power  and  of  a  beneficent 
purpose.  They  ought,  then,  to  have  perceived  that 
these  mighty  works  were  God's  visible  seal  upon  the 
claim  of  Jesus.  This  is  their  significance  both  in 
the  Synoptists  and  John ;  but  this  function  does  not 
raise  them  to   a  place  beside  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

The  importance  of  the  revelation  of  Jesus,  as  a 
means  of  realizing  the  Messianic  purpose,  lay  in  the 
fact  that  He  thereby  communicated  a  unique  and  ab- 
solute knowledge  of  God.  It  is  plain,  even  in  the 
Synoptists,  that  He  claimed  to  have  such  knowledge. 
He  claimed  it  when  He  said  that  He  came  to  fulfil 
the  Law  and  the  prophets  (Mt.  v.  17).  For  the  Law 
and  the  prophets  had  as  their  great  aim  the  effectual 
revelation  of  God's  will  to  men ;  and  they  did,  indeed, 
reveal  it  by  "  divers  portions  and  in  divers  manners," 
and  they  had  a  " shadow  of  the  good  things  to  come" 
(Heb.  i.    1  ;  x.    1).     But  one  who  should  fulfil  the  Law 


236  THE    REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

and  the  prophets,  who  should  perfectly  realize  the 
ideal  after  which  they  struggled,  must  of  necessity 
have  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  divine  will. 

Again,  the  Synoptists  have  the  claim  of  unique 
knowledge  in  the  word  of  Jesus  which  was  spoken 
when  He  realized  that  the  mystery  of  the  Gospel  had 
been  effectually  made  known  to  His  disciples  through 
Him.  First,  He  thanks  God  that  He  has  revealed 
"these  things"  of  the  kingdom  to  "babes";  and 
then  says  that  no  one  knows  the  Son  but  the  Father, 
nor  who  the  Father  is  but  the  Son  and  he  to  whom- 
soever the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  Him  (Mt.  xi.  25-27; 
Lk.  x.  22).  Here  is  the  claim  to  an  absolute  knowledge 
of  the  Father,  also  the  teaching  that  this  knowledge 
can  be  communicated,  and  that  Jesus  regards  the 
acceptance  of  it  by  men  as  the  accomplishment  of 
His  mission.  He  speaks  of  this  knowledge  as  given 
by  the  Father,  and  then  declares  that  it  is  given 
through  the  Son,  which  obviously  shows  that,  in  His 
thought,  what  He  reveals,  God  reveals. 

It  is  significant  that  the  invitation  of  Jesus  to  men 
to  come  unto  Him  for  rest  follows  immediately  upon 
this  statement,  that  He  alone  can  reveal  the  Father 
(Mt.  xi.  28-30).  The  evident  implication  is  that  men 
find  rest  for  their  souls  as  they  receive  from  Jesus 
His  revelation  of  the  Father,  or,  to  put  it  in  another 
form,  as  they  find  the  Father  in   Him.     Thus  the  Mes- 


THE    MESSIAH'S    EARTHLY   WORK  237 

sianic  purpose  of  Jesus  was  fulfilled  by  the  way  of 
teaching;  but  it  is  of  vital  importance  to  bear  in  mind 
the  personal  element  in  this  teaching.  Since  it  is 
Jesus,  and  no  other,  who  communicates  the  saving 
revelation  of  the  Father  (Mt.  xi.  27),  the  acceptance 
of  the  teaching  involves  the  acceptance  of  the  Teacher 
as  the  Messiah  sent  from  God  to  bring  this  teaching 
to  men.  The  work  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher  cannot  be 
separated  from  His  work  of  winning  disciples.  He 
taught  men  in  order  that  they  might  desire  to  follow 
Him ;  and  He  called  men  to  follow  Him  in  order 
that  He  might  teach  them  (Mk.  hi.  14).  Discipleship 
was  the  fruit  which  He  always  sought.  "  Follow 
me,"  now  used  in  a  literal  sense  (Mk.  ii.  14;  x.  28; 
Mt.  viii.  21-22),  and  now  in  a  figurative  sense  (Mk. 
viii.  34-35;  Mt.  xvi.  24-25),  are  the  words  which 
perfectly  express  the  sole  end  of  His  teaching.  They 
who  really  accepted  His  teaching,  accepted  Him ;  and 
they  who  accepted  Him  accepted  Him  as  reveal- 
ing the  Father,  and  also  accepted  the  Father  as 
revealed  by  Him.  Thus  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is 
not  abstract,  but  personal.  A  man  cannot  accept  it 
without  becoming  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  for  the  very 
heart  of  it  is  that  Jesus  Himself  is  the  revealer  of  the 
Father.  In  so  far  as  men  do  accept  it,  the  Messianic 
purpose  of  Jesus  is  accomplished,  and  the  purpose  of 
the  Father  is  accomplished,  who  sent  Jesus  to  do  the 


238  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Messianic  work.  Thus  the  life-work  of  Jesus,  accord- 
ing to  the  Synoptists,  was  the  work  of  a  teacher,  a 
revealer  of  God ;  but  this  work  was  accomplished 
through  the  offer  and  acceptance  of  a  perfect  embodi- 
ment of  the  revelation  in  the  person  of  the  Revealer, 
and  not  alone  by  the  offer  and  acceptance  of  a  new 
conception  of  God. 

In  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  the 

realization    of    the    Messianic  purpose,   as  far  as  it   is 

accomplished  by  the  life  of  Jesus,  is  accom- 

b.  In  the 

fourth  plished   solely   by   His   work    as   a   teacher ; 

and  thus  we  have  the  same  thought  as  in 
the  Synoptists,  but  it  is  expressed  with  greater  clearness 
and  urgency. 

The  value  of  the  revelation  of  Jesus  rests  upon  the 
fact  that  it  springs  out  of  an  immediate  knowledge  of 
God.  The  claim  of  Jesus  to  an  absolute  knowledge  of 
the  Father  is  presented  much  more  fully  by  John  than 
by  the  earlier  evangelists.  We  meet  it  near  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Gospel,  in  the  dialogue  with  Nicodemus  (Jn. 
iii.  13),  and  all  the  way  through  the  narrative  till  the 
final  conversation  with  the  Roman  governor  (Jn.  xviii. 
37).  Thus  He  said  that  no  one  but  the  Son  of  man 
had  ascended  into  heaven,  and  hence  no  one  but  He 
could  declare  "  heavenly  things,"  that  is,  Messianic 
truths  (Jn.  iii.  13).  Likewise  He  says  that  the  Father 
shows  the  Son  all  things  which   He  Himself  doeth  (Jn. 


THE    MESSIAH'S    EARTHLY   WORK  239 

v.  20),  which  implies  that  He  shows  them  to  no  one 
else.  Again,  Jesus  claims  full  and  unique  knowledge 
when  He  says  that  no  one  has  seen  the  Father  save  He 
who  is  from  God  (Jn.  vi.  46),  and  when  in  His  last 
prayer  He  speaks  twice  of  giving  to  His  disciples  the 
name  which  the  Father  had  given  to  Him  (Jn.  xvii.  11, 
12).  In  like  manner  He  says  that  the  world  knew  not 
the  Father,  but  He,  in  solitary  contrast  with  the  world, 
knew  Him  (Jn.  xvii.  25).  This  knowing  the  will  of  the 
Father  is  expressed  by  Jesus  in  a  variety  of  figures. 
Thus  He  hears  the  Father  speak  and  teach  (Jn.  v.  30; 
viii.  28);  He  sees  in  the  presence  of  the  Father  the 
things  which  He  speaks  (Jn.  viii.  38);  the  Father  shows 
Him  all  that  He  doeth  (Jn.  v.  26),  or,  in  general  terms, 
the  words  that  He  speaks  and  the  revelation  that  He 
imparts  have  been  given  to  Him  by  the  Father  (Jn.  xvii. 
8,  11).  This  language  of  Jesus  implies  that  He  felt 
perfectly  certain  of  His  teaching.  What  He  had  heard 
from  the  Father,  or  seen  in  His  presence,  He  could  and 
must  utter  without  hesitation.  And  His  teaching  does 
indeed  bear  the  stamp  of  perfect  assurance.  There  is 
never  a  tone  of  doubt  in  it.  Jesus  is  never  confused  or 
unprepared. 

The  claim  of  Jesus  to  teach  what  He  has  seen  with 
the  Father  does  not  imply  that  He  ignored  the  Old 
Testament,  and  claimed  direct  and  immediate  revelation 
as  the  source  of  all   His  teaching.     He  regarded  the 


24O  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Scriptures  as  witnessing  concerning  Him,  and  intimated 
that  the  sum  of  their  teaching  was  that  men  should 
come  to  Him  for  life  (Jn.  v.  39-40).  But  this  thought, 
that  men  have  eternal  life  in  Hint,  is  surely  a  part 
of  the  doctrine  which  He  said  was  not  His  but  the 
Father's  (Jn.  vii.  16).  This  is  one  of  the  Messianic 
truths  which  He  has  learned  in  communion  with  the 
Father  (Jn.  iii.   12-13). 

Again,  His  conviction  that  the  Son  of  man  must  be 
lifted  up  may  have  come  to  Him,  in  part  at  least,  by 
reading  the  experience  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness  (Num. 
xxi.  9;  Jn.  iii.  14).  Occasionally  Jesus  uses  the  Scrip- 
tures in  His  controversies  with  the  Jews,  and  in  conver- 
sation with  His  disciples,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  He 
says  that  He  speaks  the  things  which  He  has  seen  with 
the  Father  (Jn.  x.  34-35;  vi.  45;  xiii.  18;  xv.  25). 
Therefore  it  seems  plain  that  with  reference  to  some  of 
His  teaching,  at  least,  He  heard  the  Father's  voice  and 
saw  the  Father  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament, 
—  a  conception  which  is  in  fundamental  accord  with 
that  idea  of  the  Old  Testament  which  we  find  in  the 
Synoptists  (e.g.  Mt.  v.  17-19;  Mk.  xii.  30-31  ;  Mt.  xxii. 

37-40). 

This  leads  to  another  point,  namely,  that  Jesus  ac- 
quired His  knowledge  of  the  Father  in  His  earthly  life. 
Some  of  the  passages  in  which  He  speaks  of  this 
knowledge  harmonize  with  the  view  that  He  gained  it  in 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY    WORK  24 1 

a  preexistent  state,1  though  not  one  can  reasonably  be 
said  to  require  that  view.  Jesus  speaks  of  the  Father's 
commandments  to  Him  in  the  aorist  tense,  which 
points  to  past  time  and  so  might  refer  to  a  preexistent 
state.  Thus  He  says,  "  As  the  Father  taught  me,  I 
speak  these  things;"  and  "The  words  which  Thou 
gavest  me  I  have  given  to  them  "  (Jn.  viii.  28 ;  xvii.  8). 
Oftener  He  uses  the  perfect  tense  in  speaking  of  what 
He  has  seen  with  the  Father,  which  also  allows,  but 
does  not  require,  a  reference  to  preexistence.  Thus  He 
says,  "  I  speak  the  things  which  I  have  seen  with  the 
Father;"  and,  "The  Father  who  hath  sent  me,  He 
hath  given  me  a  commandment,  what  I  should  say " 
(Jn.  viii.  38 ;  xii.  49-50).  But  still  more  frequently 
Jesus  uses  the  present  tense  when  speaking  of  the 
Father's  communications  to  Him,  and  once  the  future. 
Thus  He  says  that  the  Father  shows  Him  what  He 
does  (Jn.  v.  20),  shows  Him  day  by  day,  as  need  arises. 
Again,  He  judges  as  He  hears  from  the  Father  (Jn.  v. 
30),  and  the  Father  abiding  in  Him  works  (Jn.  xiv.  10). 
He  knows  that  His  Messianic  witness  is  true,  because 
He  is  conscious  that  He  is  not  alone.  He  knows  that 
the  Father  is  with  Him,  and  that  the  witness  which  He 
bears  is  also  the  Father's  witness  (Jn.  viii.  16-18). 
These  passages,  as  those  in  which  He  draws  His  teach- 
ing from  Scripture,  and  that  one  in  which  He  refers  to 

1  Comp.  Weiss,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  p.  616. 


242  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

a  future  teaching  by  the  Father  (Jn.  v.  20),  show  that 
when  Jesus  speaks  of  seeing  things  in  the  Father's 
presence  and  hearing  words  from  Him,  we  are  not  war- 
ranted in  supposing  that  He  refers  in  any  single  in- 
stance to  a  preexistent  state.  He  refers  rather  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Father  which  He  was  constantly  receiv- 
ing in  His  earthly  life.  None  of  the  passages  require 
that  this  statement  should  be  modified.  When  Jesus 
says  that  the  Father  taught,  using  the  aorist  tense,  the 
word  is  spoken  in  both  cases  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
end  of  His  life ;  and  as  summarizing  what  had  been 
experienced  in  His  earthly  life,  the  aorist  is  appropri- 
ately used.  And  when  Jesus  says  that  He  speaks  the 
things  which  He  has  seen  with  the  Father,  using 
the  perfect  tense,  nothing  suggests  that  this  form  of  the 
verb  implies  preexistence.  One  must  bring  that  thought 
to  the  text  before  it  can  be  found  there.  The  signifi- 
cance of  the  perfect  is  simply  this,  that  what  Jesus  has 
seen  with  the  Father  abides  in  full  force  with  Him  to 
the  present  hour. 

Moreover,  this  view  that  Jesus  acquired  His  know- 
ledge of  the  Father  in  His  earthly  life  1  is  the  only  one 
which  accords  with  the  fact  that  Jesus  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  lays  great  stress  upon  His  moral  union  with  the 
Father,  but  nowhere  distinctly  alludes  to  a  metaphysical 
relationship. 

1  Comp.  Lk.  ii   40,  52. 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  243 

Now  the  communication  of  this  unique  knowledge  of 
the  Father,  on  which  the  fourth  Gospel  puts  so  much 
emphasis,  is  the  Messianic  work.  This  thought  appears 
in  various  forms  on  the  lips  of  Jesus.  In  the  conscious- 
ness that  He  has  this  life-giving  knowledge  He  calls  him- 
self the  light  of  the  world  (Jn.  viii.  12  ;  ix.  5  ;  xii.  35). 
He  sums  up  His  activity  in  behalf  of  mankind  as  a  bear- 
ing witness  unto  the  truth  (Jn.  xviii.  37),  and  the  centre  of 
His  claim  to  Thomas  is  that  He  Himself  is  the  truth 
(Jn.  xiv.  6).  He  is  the  way  to  the  Father  because  He 
is  the  truth,  and  He  is  the  life  of  men  because  He  is  the 
truth.  His  truth  is  the  spring  of  His  life  and  the  light 
of  His  way.  Again,  Jesus  says  that  it  is  His  mission  to 
speak  what  He  has  seen  with  the  Father  (Jn.  viii.  38), 
and  to  make  known  all  things  which  He  has  heard  from 
the  Father  (Jn.  viii.  26;  xv.  15).  In  His  closing  prayer 
He  refers  to  His  life-work  as  a  manifestation  of  the 
name  of  the  Father,  or  a  giving  to  men  of  the  word  of 
the  Father,  which  is  truth,  or  a  giving  to  them  of  the 
glory  which  the  Father  had  given  to  Him,  which  is 
nothing  else  than  the  Father's  revelation  of  Himself 
(Jn.  xvii.  6,  8,  17,  22).  They  who  hear  His  word  from 
the  Father  live,  because  His  word  is  spirit  and  life  (Jn. 
v.  25;  vi.  63;  comp.  Mk.  iv.  4,  14).  They  are  quick- 
ened by  it,  and  pass  out  of  death  into  life  (Jn.  v.  21,  24). 

Such  is  the  prominence  which  is  given  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  to  the  teaching  function  of  Jesus  as  the  means 


244  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

of  realizing  His  Messianic  purpose.  This  is  virtually 
the  exclusive  means,  for  the  signs  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
(eight  described)  are  subordinated  to  the  teaching,  as  in 
the  Synoptists.  Jesus  reproached  the  nobleman  of 
Capernaum,  and  with  him  the  Jews  of  that  day  in  gen- 
eral, when  He  said,  "  Except  ye  see  signs  and  wonders 
ye  will  in  no  wise  believe  "  (Jn.  iv.  48).  This  implies 
that  He  thought  there  was  a  better  ground  of  belief  in 
Him  as  Messiah  than  mere  signs  and  wonders.  Of 
course  it  does  not  follow  that  He  regarded  the  signs 
as  unimportant.  The  next  day  after  feeding  the  multi- 
tudes near  Bethsaida  He  said  to  the  Jews,  "  Ye  seek 
me  not  because  ye  saw  signs,  but  because  ye  ate  of  the 
loaves  and  were  filled"  (Jn.  vi.  26).  Here  it  is  implied 
that,  in  His  judgment,  the  signs  which  they  had  seen 
might  well  have  led  them  to  seek  Him.  In  like  manner 
He  spoke  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  as  an  event 
which  manifested  the  glory  of  God,  and  which  glorified 
the  Son  of  God  (Jn.  xi.  4,  40).  It  glorified  the  Son  of 
God  because,  in  connection  with  His  claim,  it  showed 
Him  to  be  the  Messiah,  which  is  the  function  of  all  the 
signs  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 

But  while  Jesus  thus  spoke  of  His  signs,  He  did  not 
coordinate  them  with  His  teaching.  In  His  final  prayer, 
wherein  He  reviews  His  life-work  and  speaks  of  what 
He  has  done  for  the  disciples,  He  does  not  mention  the 
miraculous  works,  but  speaks  of  the  Father's  words  and 


THE   MESSIAH'S    EARTHLY    WORK  245 

the  Father's  name,  which  He  has  given  to  them.  This 
is  His  great  work,  and  it  is  this  which  is  to  be  continued 
by  His  successor.  The  Holy  Spirit  will  teach  them,  and 
bring  to  their  remembrance  all  that  Jesus  said  to  them 
(Jn.  xiv.  26).  He  is  to  bear  witness  of  Jesus  (Jn.  xv. 
26).  Thus  the  revelation  of  Jesus  remains  the  essential 
means  of  accomplishing  the  Messianic  work,  while  His 
signs  had  only  a  passing  and  incidental  importance. 

As  the  fourth  Gospel  gives  prominence  to  teaching  in 
the  realization  of  the  Messianic  purpose,  so  it  gives  a 
corresponding  prominence  to  the  personal  relationship 
which  is  involved  in  the  acceptance  of  the  teaching. 
Jesus  manifests  the  name  of  the  Father  (Jn.  xvii.  6,  26), 
that  is,  the  Father's  character,  and  He  manifests  this  in 
His  own  character.  "  /  am  the  light  of  the  world  " 
(Jn.  viii.  12);  "/am  the  resurrection  and  the  life"  (Jn. 
xi.  25);  "/  am  the  way  and  the  truth  and  the  life  "  (Jn. 
xiv.  6);  "This  is  life  eternal  that  they  should  know 
thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  him  whom  thou  didst 
send,  Jesus  Christ  "(Jn.  xvii.  3).  The  thought  of  ac- 
cepting the  words  which  He  has  received  from  the 
Father  alternates  with  the  thought  of  appropriating 
Him  (Jn.  xvii.  8  ;  vi.  57).  In  John,  then,  as  little  as  in 
the  Synoptists  does  Jesus  ever  separate  between  the 
verbal  and  the  personal  revelation  of  the  Father,  or 
think  of  the  acceptance  of  His  doctrine  apart  from  the 
acceptance  of  Himself. 


246  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

From  the  realization  of  the  Messianic  purpose  in 
the  life  of  Jesus  we  pass  now  to  consider  the  bearing 
of  His  death  upon  the  realization  of  that  purpose,  and 
first  we  must  notice  the  progressive  unfolding  of  the 
thought  of    death. 

in.  The  The  evangelist  Mark,  when  he  gives  Jesus' 

Messianic       ^rst  forrr,al  announcement  of   His  death,  in- 

purpose 

realized  timates  that  the   Lord    had   referred  to   the 

through 

death.  same  subject  before,  but  in  a  veiled  manner, 

sive  unfold-  f°r  after  recording  what  Jesus  said  of  His 
Jhourfrtof  death  when  He  was  at  Csesarea  Philippi,  he 
death.  adds  that  He  spake  the  word  openly  (Mk.  viii. 

31-32).  We  find  in  Mark's  Gospel  one  obscure  refer- 
ence by  Jesus  to  His  death  made  prior  to  the  sojourn  at 
Caesarea  Philippi.  This  reference  was  made  on  the  occa- 
sion when  Jesus  was  called  to  account  for  allowing  His 
disciples  to  drop  the  fasts  which  the  Pharisees  and  the 
disciples  of  John  observed.  He  then  said  that  the 
present  was  a  time  of  joy  for  His  disciples,  and  there- 
fore fasting,  which  should  express  sorrow  of  heart, 
would  be  quite  out  of  place.  His  disciples  were  sons 
of  the  bridechamber,  and  had  the  bridegroom  with 
them.  The  time  would  come,  however,  when  the 
bridegroom  would  be  taken  away  from  them,  and  then 
fasting  would  be  appropriate  (Mk.  ii.  20).  Jesus  does 
not  intimate  how  the  bridegroom  would  be  taken  away, 
whether  by  a  violent  or  a  natural  death,  or  by  a  trans- 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  247 

lation  such  as  Enoch  and  Elijah  experienced.  The 
fact  that  His  removal  would  cause  them  sorrow  may- 
best  accord  with  the  thought  of  a  violent  death,  but 
plainly  does  not  require  it. 

In  Matthew  and  Luke  we  find  another  allusion  by 
Jesus  to  His  death,  which  antedates  the  word  at  Cassarea 
Philippi;  but  it  is  hardly  more  definite  in  its  implication 
in  regard  to  the  method  or  significance  of  Jesus'  death 
than  is  Mark's  saying  about  the  removal  of  the  bride- 
groom (Mt.  xii.  38-41  ;  Lk.  xi.  29-32).  The  occasion 
of  the  remark  was  the  desire  of  scribes  and  Pharisees  to 
see  some  sign  from  Jesus,  some  sign  according  to  their 
own  fancy  of  what  a  sign  should  be,  in  order  that  it 
might  give  convincing  proof  of  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus.  Their  unbelief  and  hostility  were  so  bitter 
that  they  had  just  before  this  declared  that  Jesus  was 
possessed  by  an  unclean  spirit  (Mk.  hi.  30).  In  re- 
ply to  this  request  of  the  Jews  for  a  sign,  Jesus  uttered 
the  severest  words  regarding  that  generation  which 
He  had  thus  far  spoken.  He  declared  that  it  was 
evil  and  adulterous,  and  that  no  sign  should  be  given 
it   but    the   sign  of  Jonah. 

In  Luke's  version  Jesus  says  that  the  Son  of  man 
shall  be  a  sign  to  that  generation  as  Jonah  was  a  sign 
to  the  Ninevites  (Lk.  xi.  29-30).  This  statement  is 
quite  genera],  and  does  not  suggest  hoiv  Jonah  was  a 
sign.     He  came  to  Nineveh  as  a  prophet  of  Jehovah. 


248  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

and  so  Jesus  had  come  to  His  generation.  The  Old 
Testament  does  not  say  that  Jonah  told  the  Ninevites 
of  his  strange  experiences  as  he  sought  to  flee  from 
the  face  of  the  Lord.  That  which  is  said  to  have 
moved  Nineveh  to  repent  was  the  announcement  that 
judgment  would  soon  fall  upon  it  for  its  wickedness, 
unless  it  turned  to  the  Lord.  But  in  Matthew's  ver- 
sion Jesus  makes  the  sign  of  Jonah  to  consist  in  the 
fact  that  he  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the 
belly  of  the  great  fish  (Mt.  xii.  39-40).  He  said  that 
the  Son  of  man,  in  like  manner,  should  be  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth. 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  genuineness  of  this 
saying  which  Matthew  records;1  and  it  justifies,  as 
Luke's  version  does  not,  the  use  of  the  expression  the 
sign  of  Jonah.  It  does  not  imply  that  Jesus  regarded 
Jonah's  experience  as  prophetical  of  His  own,  or  even 
that  He  regarded  it  as  historical ;  but  He  saw  in  it 
a  convenient  illustration  of  His  own  thought.  It  was 
suggestive,  but  also  obscure.  The  hearers  would  not 
regard  it  as  necessarily  foreshadowing  the  death  of 
the  Son  of  man,  for  as  Jonah  had  been  three  days 
and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  sea  without  tast- 
ing death,  so  might  the  Son  of  man  be  three  days 
and  three    nights    in    the  heart    of    the    earth  without 

1  Holtzmann,  Lehrbuch  der  neutestamentlichen  Theologie,  i.  279,  thinks 
Matthew's  narrative  shows  the  ingenuity  of  a  Jewish-Christian  rabbinism. 


THE  MESSIAH'S    EARTHLY   WORK  249 

dying.  Then  the  plain  intimation  that  He  would  be 
in  the  heart  of  the  earth  only  three  days  and  three 
nights  would  sooner  turn  the  hearer's  thought  away 
from  death  than  toward  it.  But  the  language  of  Jesus 
would  at  least  suggest  something  dreadful  as  about 
to  be  experienced  by  Him,  and  it  taught  that  this 
dreadful  experience,  when  it  should  come,  would  be  a 
sign  to  that  generation.  We  cannot  doubt,  however, 
that  for  Jesus  Himself,  the  sign  of  Jonah  involved 
the  thought  of  death  and  resurrection. 

These  two  obscure  sayings  are  the  only  words  of 
Jesus,  spoken  before  the  crisis  at  Caesarea  Philippi, 
which  allude  to  His  death,  and  one  of  these  has  no 
hint  whatever  as  to  the  meaning  of  that  event.1  This 
period  which,  in  the  Synoptic  narrative,  furnishes 
but  two  allusions  by  Jesus  to  His  death,  included 
about  three-fourths  of  His  public  ministry.2  But  from 
the  day  of  the  first  formal  announcement  of  death 
onward  to  the  close  of  Jesus'  life,  we  find  references 
to  His  death  comparatively  frequent  and  perfectly 
explicit.  All  the  Synoptists  record  three  announce- 
ments by  Jesus  in  very  similar  language,  two  of  them 
near  together  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  six  or 
seven    months,  and   the  other  near   the    close   of  this 

1The  word  about  bearing  the  cross  (Mt.x.  38)  is  regarded  as  subsequent 
to  the  confession  of  Peter  (comp.  Mk.  viii.  34). 
2  See  The  Students  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  242. 


250  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

period  (Mk.  viii.  31;  ix.  31;  x.  33-34;  Mt.  xvi.  21; 
xvii.  22-23;  xx-  18-19;  Lk.  ix.  22,  43-44;  xviii. 
31-33).  While  these  announcements  are  similar,  it 
is  to  be  noticed  that  the  last  one  is  made  more  dreadful 
than  the  first  two  by  the  addition  of  some  details  of 
suffering.  Thus  it  is  in  this  announcement  that  Jesus 
speaks  for  the  first  time  of  mocking,  spitting,  scourging, 
and  according  to  Matthew,  of  crucifixion,  as  part  of  the 
cup  of  His  approaching  trial.  Besides  these  formal 
announcements  which  are  given  by  all  the  Synoptists 
there  are  no  less  than  fourteen  other  references,  more 
or  less  explicit.  Of  these,  ten  seem  to  belong  to  the 
last  week ;  three  are  associated  with  the  transfigura- 
tion and  thus  follow  closely  upon  the  formal  announce- 
ment at  Caesarea  Philippi,  and  one  belongs  in  the 
Perean  ministry.  Hence  we  conclude  that,  as  far  as 
the  Synoptic  report  informs  us,  Jesus  only  alluded  to 
His  death  during  the  first  three-quarters  of  His  minis- 
try ;  that  He  spoke  of  it  several  times  in  the  days 
spent  near  Caesarea  Philippi,  after  the  close  of  His 
public  work  in  Galilee  ;  and  that  in  the  last  week  He 
referred  to  His  death  still  more  frequently  and  fully. 
But  we  cannot  at  once  infer  that,  because  Jesus 
gradually  unfolded  the  thought  of  His  death,  therefore 
this  thought  was  only  gradually  formed  within  His 
own  mind.  Gradualness  of  unfolding  might,  obviously, 
be   due   to   other    causes.      And,    moreover,    it   seems 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  25 1 

decidedly  probable  that  Jesus,  who  everywhere  reveals 
a  profound  spiritual  acquaintance  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  an  unparalleled  insight  into  the  character  of 
men,  had  from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry  seen 
that  His  way  would  be  one  of  suffering.  The  refer- 
ence to  the  removal  of  the  bridegroom  came  very 
early  in  the  Galilean  ministry,  and  its  accent  is  not 
uncertain.  "The  days  will  come  when  the  bride- 
groom shall  be  taken  away."  From  the  beginning  of 
the  ministry,  too,  Jesus  could  not  fail  to  hear  a  note 
of  defiance  and  of  inextinguishable  hatred  in  the  cries 
of  the  demoniacs  and  in  the  sullen  murmurings  of  the 
scribes  {e.g.  Mk.  i.  26;  ii.  7).  And,  finally,  there 
is  no  proof  that,  in  the  early  part  of  His  ministry, 
the  eyes  of  Jesus  were  holden  so  that  He  could 
not  read  in  the  Old  Testament  what  He  plainly  saw 
there  in  the  later  months  of  His  life.  But  at  the  same 
time  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose,  and  it  is  not  prob- 
able, that  Jesus  from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry 
foresaw  the  details  of  His  suffering  and  death.  These 
were  not  suggested  by  the  Old  Testament. 

Hence  we  conclude  that  the  lateness  of  Jesus'  first 
explicit  reference  to  His  death  is  most  probably  to 
be  attributed  to  the  condition  of  His  disciples.  Mark 
says  that  Jesus  spoke  the  word  of  the  kingdom  as 
the  disciples  were  able  to  hear  it  (Mk.  iv.  33);  and 
it  seems  quite  certain  that  they  had  not  been  able  to 


252  THE   REVELATION  OF  JESUS 

hear  the  announcement  of  suffering  and  death  earlier 
than  the  days  at  Caesarea  Philippi.  Even  then  they 
were  in  danger  of  stumbling  at  it,  and  till  the  last 
day  of  the  life  of  Jesus  they  failed  to  comprehend 
it.  But  while  the  disciples  could  not  understand  the 
saying  about  the  death  of  their  Messiah,  they  were 
at  this  time  inwardly  prepared  to  hear  it,  because 
they  had  come  to  have  a  personal  attachment  to 
Jesus  which  was  stronger  than  their  attachment  to 
their  own  peculiar  ideal  of  the  Messianic  kingdom. 
They  had  stood  the  strain  of  the  last  days  of  the 
public  ministry  in  Galilee,  when  the  multitudes  and 
many  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  had  turned  away  from 
Him.1  They  had  acquired  a  strength  of  conviction 
which  made  it  safe  for  Jesus  to  begin  to  teach  them 
in  regard  to  His  death. 

Jesus  was  clearly  led  to  the  thought  of  His  death 
by  His  study  of  the  Scriptures.  The  first  suggestion 
b.  The  source  °f  this  ^act  *s  found  in  the  account  of  the 
thou^htof  transfiguration  scene.  According  to  Luke, 
death.  the    three    disciples    on    the    mountain    saw 

Moses  and  Elijah,  and  heard  them  talking  with  Jesus 
about  His  decease  in  Jerusalem  (Lk.  ix.  30-31). 
One  object  of  this  vision  which  was  granted  to  the 
disciples  was  to  reconcile  their  minds  to  the  thought 
of    the   death   of    Jesus,   which    had   now   for  the   first 

1  Comp.  I'he  Student's  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  264-267. 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  253 

time  been  formally  announced  to  them.1  It  was  to 
suggest  to  them  that,  both  in  the  Law  and  the 
prophets,  the  death  of  the  Messiah  was  foreshadowed, 
and  consequently  that  their  view,  which  was  also  the 
view  of  the  Jews  in  general,  that  the  Messiah  should 
come  in  glory  and  abide  forever,  was  incorrect.  But 
if  this  thought  was  communicated  to  the  disciples  as 
the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  whether  by  a 
vision  or  otherwise,  we  cannot  suppose  that  Jesus 
had  failed  to  find  it  there. 

Again,  as  they  went  down  from  the  mountain,  and 
talked  about  the  appearance  and  mission  of  Elijah, 
Jesus  suggested  that  Elijah's  restoration  of  all  tilings, 
which  the  scribes  taught,  was  in  conflict  with  the 
Scriptures  concerning  the  Son  of  man,  which  said 
that  He  must  suffer  many  things  and  be  set  at 
naught.  Manifestly,  if  Elijah  had  restored  all  things 
and  had  made  them  ready  for  the  Messiah,  there 
would  have  been  no  opposition  to  Him,  and  He 
would  not  have  been  put  to  death  by  the  Jews.  Con- 
sequently that  passage  of  Scripture  which  Jesus  had 
in  mind  about  the  suffering  of  the  Messiah,  whatever 
it  may  have  been,  would  have  failed  of  fulfilment. 
It  is  plain  that  Jesus,  at  this  time,  read  His  death  in 
the  Old  Testament,  or,  if  not  his  death,  as  in  Mt.  xvii. 
12,  at  least  His  suffering  of  many  things  and  being 
1  See  The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  275-276, 


254  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

set  at  naught  (Mk.  ix.  12).  In  other  words,  He  was 
convinced  that  He  must  experience  an  outward  and 
ignominious  defeat. 

Once  more,  it  is  plain  from  the  words  of  Jesus  that 
the  fate  of  the  prophets  had  suggested  that  His  own 
fate  would  be  a  violent  death.  In  the  parable  of  the 
Wicked  Husbandmen,  He  represents  God's  messengers, 
the  prophets,  as  being  beaten  and  killed,  and  says 
that  the  householder's  son  —  meaning  Himself  —  is  to 
share  the  same  fate  (Mk.  xii.  6-8).  At  an  earlier 
day  He  said  that  a  prophet  could  not  perish  out  of 
Jerusalem,  and  as  this  word  was  occasioned  by  Her- 
od's threat  to  kill  Him  while  in  Perea,  He  evidently 
thought  of  Himself  as  being  in  the  prophetic  line. 
Their  fate  suggested  His. 

Again,  on  the  last  evening  before  the  crucifixion, 
Jesus  spoke  frequently  of  His  death  as  being  foretold 
in  Scripture.  Thus,  the  Son  of  man  goes  "as  it  is 
written  of  Him"  (Mk.  xiv.  21);  and,  again,  "I  will 
smite  the  shepherd  and  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered" 
(Mk.  xiv.  27);  and,  again,  "This  that  is  written  must 
be  fulfilled  in  me,  '  He  was  numbered  with  transgress- 
ors'  "  (Lk.  xxii.  37),  and,  finally,  "Thinkest  thou  that 
I  am  not  able  to  pray  my  Father,  and  He  shall  give 
me  presently  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  ? 
How  then  shall  the  Scripture  be  fulfilled,  that  thus  it 
must  be"  (Mt.  xxvi.   53-54)?     It  seems  plain  in  view 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  255 

of  these  passages  that  the  thought  of  suffering,  and 
even  the  certainty  of  death  itself,  was  derived  by 
Jesus  from  the  Old  Testament,  though  contemporary 
Jewish  teachers  saw  there  no  such  doctrine  concern- 
ing the  Messiah.1  But  His  own  experience  from  a 
very  early  day  echoed  the  voice  that  came  to  Him 
out  of  the  Scripture,  and  confirmed  it.  He  could  not 
fail  to  see  the  deep-seated  hate  of  scribe  and  Pharisee, 
and  He  knew  that  they  would  gladly  kill  Him  (Mk.  ii. 
7;  iii.  6).  He  must  have  seen  that  His  conceptions 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  of  the  religious  life  were 
fundamentally  opposed  to  those  of  the  teachers  of 
His  day,  and  that  sooner  or  later  there  must  be  a 
determined  effort  to  crush  Him.  And  thus  the  ex- 
perience of  Jesus  was  a  commentary  on  the  Old  Tes- 
tament text  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  and  as  the 
opposition  to  Him  deepened,  it  may  have  served  to 
make  the  word  of  Scripture  plainer  and  more  sure. 
It  is  significant  that,  as  regards  the  idea  of  a  suffer- 
ing Messiah,  Jesus  saw  in  the  Old  Testament  what 
neither  the  Jews  of  His  own  day  nor  of  previous  gener- 
ations had  seen.  To  His  disciples,  who  represent  the 
popular  belief  of  His  day,  the  thought  of  the  Messiah's 
death  was  intolerable.  Jesus  did  not  tell  them  of  His 
tragic  fate  until  He  had  bound  them  to  Him  with  strong 

1  Comp.  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des   Talmuds,  pp.  333~348;   Holtzmann, 
Lehrbuch  der  neutestamentlichen  Theologie,  i.  288, 


256  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

bonds,  and  even  then  there  was  imminent  peril  lest 
their  allegiance  to  Him  should  be  shattered  against  this 
rock.  The  words  which  the  fourth  evangelist  puts 
upon  the  lips  of  the  Baptist,  "  Behold,  the  lamb  of  God, 
who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  "  (Jn.  i.  29),  can 
by  no  means  be  regarded  as  proving  that  the  Jews 
were  familiar  with  the  thought  of  a  suffering  Messiah. 
The  character  of  the  fourth  Gospel  rather  requires  that 
we  should  regard  these  words  as  the  evangelist's  ideali- 
zation of  the  Baptist's  testimony ;  and  this  is  required 
also  by  the  fact  that  the  disciples  of  the  Baptist  were 
the  very  men  who  could  not  bear  the  thought  of  the 
Messiah's  suffering  and  death.  It  is  obvious  that  Peter 
and  the  other  apostles  who  had  been  pupils  of  the 
Baptist  had  heard  nothing  of  this  doctrine  while  in  his 
school. 

We  come  now  to  the  great   question,  What   signifi- 
cance did  Jesus  attach  to  His  own  sufferings  and  death? 

It  is  plain,  as  we  have  seen,  that  Jesus  was 
c.  The  r         '  J 

meaning         led  by  the  Scriptures  to  regard  His  death  as 

which  Jesus 

attached  to  a  necessary  part  of  the  Messiah's  career;  but 
with  the  exception  of  five,  or  possibly  six, 
passages,  He  gives  no  suggestion  in  regard  to  the 
ground  of  this  necessity,  or  the  spiritual  significance 
of  His  death.  In  other  words,  out  of  something  more 
than  twenty  Synoptic  references  by  Jesus  to  His  death, 
about  seventeen  treat  it  simply  and  only  as  a  fact  in  the 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  257 

Messianic  career.  But  before  proceeding  to  an  analy- 
sis of  the  exceptional  words  in  which  Jesus  refers  to  the 
meaning  of  His  death,  it  will  be  of  advantage  to  take  a 
rapid  survey  of  the  other  words  which  show  the  char- 
acter of  His  habitual  allusions  to  this  event.  It  first 
appears  as  a  fact  which  will  cause  sorrow  to  His  dis- 
ciples. "  Days  will  come  when  the  bridegroom  shall  be 
taken  away  from  them,  and  then  shall  they  fast  in  that 
day "  (Mk.  ii.  20).  The  three  solemn  and  formal  an- 
nouncements which  are  given  by  all  the  Synoptists  are 
simply  announcements  of  the  fact  of  death  with  more 
or  fewer  details  of  suffering  and  shame  (Mk.  viii.  31 ; 
ix.  31  ;  x.  33-34).  In  the  first,  the  necessity  of  Jesus' 
death  and  resurrection  is  explicitly  stated,  but  in  no  one 
of  the  passages  is  there  any  allusion  to  the  meaning  of 
the  event.  On  the  mount  of  transfiguration  Moses  and 
Elijah  were  seen  talking  with  Jesus  about  His  decease 
(Lk.  ix.  30-31),  and  as  they  came  down  from  the  mount 
Jesus  charged  the  disciples  not  to  tell  what  they  had 
seen  until  the  Son  of  man  should  rise  from  the  dead 
(Mk.  ix.  9).  But  in  neither  case  is  there  a  word  of  ex- 
planation. Nor  is  there  when,  in  the  same  hour,  He 
said  that  it  was  according  to  Scripture  that  the  Son  of 
man  should  suffer  and  be  set  at  naught  (Mk.  ix.  12). 
On  one  occasion  certain  Pharisees  told  Jesus  that 
Herod  desired  to  kill  Him  (Lk.  xiii.  31).  Jesus  said,  in 
His  reply,  that  He  must  go  on   His  way  that  day  and 


258  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

the  next  because  a  prophet  could  not  perish  out  of 
Jerusalem  (Lk.  xiii.  33).  In  the  parable  of  the  Wicked 
Husbandmen  Jesus  alluded  to  His  own  death  at  the 
hands  of  the  Jews,  when  He  said  that  the  husbandmen 
killed  the  son  of  the  owner  of  the  vineyard  (Mk.  xii.  6- 
8);  and  when  He  was  anointed  in  the  house  of  Simon 
He  said  that  the  act  was  an  anticipation  of  the  final 
anointing  of  His  body  for  burial  (Mk.  xiv.  8).  Then, 
on  the  last  evening,  He  said  that  He  had  greatly  de- 
sired to  eat  the  Passover  before  He  should  suffer  (Lk. 
xxii.  15),  and,  again,  when  speaking  of  the  traitor,  He 
said,  "The  Son  of  man  goes  as  it  is  written  concerning 
Him"  (Mk.  xiv.  21).  Here,  also,  belongs  the  word  that 
the  Scripture  must  be  fulfilled  in  Him  which  says, 
"  He  was  numbered  with  transgressors  "  (Lk.  xxii.  37). 
And  finally,  after  the  resurrection,  Jesus  told  His  dis- 
ciples that  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Messiah 
were  written,  that  is,  of  course,  in  the  Old  Testament 
(Lk.  xxiv.  46).  But  in  all  these  passages  it  is  simply 
the  fact  of  death  which  comes  into  view ;  nothing  is 
said  of  the  meaning  of  the  fact.  It  is  sometimes  re- 
ferred to  as  necessary  and  as  foretold  in  the  Scriptures, 
but  nothing  is  said  of  its  place  in  the  Messianic  work 
of  Jesus. 

Such,  then,  is  the  character  of  the  habitual  references 
which  Jesus  made  to  His  sufferings  and  death.  He  spoke 
of  them  as  approaching  facts,  but  without  explanation. 


THE  MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY  WORK  259 

We  pass  now  to  the  consideration  of  those  excep- 
tional words  of  Jesus  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  which 
involve  more  or  less  of  explanation  and  comment  on 
the  fact  of  His  death.  And  first,  we  notice  that  some 
of  these  words  make  the  significance  of  the  death  of 
Jesus  personal  to  Himself.  This  is  the  suggestion  of 
the  message  which  Jesus  bade  the  Pharisees  take  to 
Herod,  "  Go,  say  to  this  fox,  Lo,  I  cast  out  demons 
and  perform  cures  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  on  the 
third  day  I  am  perfected"  (Lk.  xiii.  32).  This  saying  is 
obscure.  If  with  Meyer1  and  others  we  understand 
Jesus  to  say  that  on  the  third  day  He  will  finish 
the  zvork  of  casting  out  demons  and  performing  cures,  then 
of  course  there  is  here  no  direct  allusion  to  death ;  and 
if  with  Godet2  we  understand  Him  to  say  that  on  the 
third  day  He  will  finish  His  life,  then  plainly  there  is 
no  allusion  in  the  verse  to  the  significance  of  His  death. 
But  we  cannot  regard  either  of  these  interpretations 
as  well  supported.  For  we  find  that  in  every  case 
where  this  verb  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  with 
a  personal  subject  and  without  an  object,  as  here,  it 
is  used  of  a  moral  and  spiritual  process.  So  Jesus  used 
it  once,  when  He  prayed  that  His  disciples  might  be 
perfected  into  one  (Jn.  xvii.  23),  and  Paul  says  that  he 

1  See  Handbuch  iiber  die  Evangelien  des  Markus  und  Lukas,  funfte 
Auflage,  p.  453. 

2  See  Commentaire  sur  V&vangile  de  Si.  Luc,  Tome  second,  pp. 
154-155- 


260  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

does  not  count  himself  made  perfect  (Phil.  iii.  12). 
The  author  of  Hebrews  uses  this  same  word  three 
times  when  speaking  of  Jesus  (Heb.  ii.  10;  v.  8-9; 
vii.  28),  and  five  times  when  speaking  of  other  persons 
{e.g.  Heb.  ix.  9),  and  in  every  case  he  thinks  of  a  moral 
or  spiritual  perfecting.1  Moreover,  this  meaning  which 
seems  to  be  required  by  New  Testament  usage  suits  the 
present  context  as  well  as  the  other.  Jesus  says,  "  I 
cast  out  demons  and  perform  cures  to-day  and  to- 
morrow, and  on  the  third  day  I  am  perfected"  That 
means  that  Herod  cannot  interrupt  His  Messianic  work. 
It  will  go  forward  to  its  consummation  at  the  appointed 
time.  And  that  consummation  will  be  in  some  sense 
His  own  personal  consummation.  The  character  of 
this  reference  to  His  death  is  similar  to  that  of  the 
well-known  reference  in  John,  where  He  speaks  of  the 
hour  of  His  death  as  the  hour  of  His  glorification  (Jn. 
xii.  23).  Doubtless  the  Pharisees  did  not  understand 
this  word  of  Jesus  ;  and  if  it  was  reported  to  Herod, 
it  must  have  been  fully  unintelligible  to  him  ;  but  this 
is  not  against  the  correctness  of  our  interpretation. 
For  the  main  purport  of  the  reply  of  Jesus  was  per- 
fectly clear.  He  told  Herod,  in  effect,  that  He  should 
keep  right  on  in  His  Messianic  work  until  the  appointed 
time  was  fulfilled.  And  the  one  obscure  term  which 
He  used  had  a  subtle  fitness  in  view  of  Herod's  desire. 

1  Comp.  Plummer,  Commentary  on  Luke. 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY    WORK  26 1 

He  wanted  to  kill  Jesus,  and  so  destroy  His  influence. 
The  death  of  Jesus  would  be,  in  his  thought  as  in 
that  of  the  Pharisees,  the  end  of  Him  and  of  His 
work.  Jesus  in  His  reply  intimates  that  His  death 
is  His  perfecting  ;  it  will  make  Him  the  finished  and 
absolute  Messiah.  Thus,  in  this  passage,  Jesus  thinks  of 
His  death  not  in  relation  to  others,  but  only  as  a  nec- 
essary part  of  His  Messianic  experience  and  discipline. 

Another  word  of  Jesus  which  suggests  a  similar 
thought  in  regard  to  the  significance  of  His  death  is 
that  in  which  He  speaks  of  His  approaching  baptism 
(Lk.  xii.  49-50).  "I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized 
with,  and  how  am  I  straightened  till  it  be  accom- 
plished "  (comp.  Mk.  x.  38 ;  Mt.  xx.  22)!  If  He  thinks 
of  His  sufferings  and  death  as  His  baptism,  then  He 
must  necessarily  regard  them  as  having  a  significance 
personal  to  Himself.  The  very  figure  seems  to  require 
this,  for  a  man's  baptism  is  for  himself.  It  may  have 
most  important  consequences  for  others,  but  only  by 
way  of  the  man  who  experiences  it. 

The  remaining  word  of  Jesus  which  belongs  in  this 
class  is  also  found  in  Luke's  Gospel  and  nowhere 
else.  It  is  the  word  spoken  to  the  two  disciples  on 
the  way  to  Emmaus.  "  Behoved  it  not  the  Christ 
to  suffer  these  things  and  to  enter  into  His  glory " 
(Lk.  xxiv.  26,  46)  ?  Here  the  suffering  of  death 
appears  to  be  regarded  as  a  necessary  stage   in   the 


262  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Messiah's  progress  to  glory.  This  is  the  only  aspect 
of  it  to  which  reference  is  here  made,  and  this,  there- 
fore, seems  to  have  been  the  aspect  which  Jesus 
regarded  as  of  chief  importance  to  His  disciples  at 
that  time.  They  were  to  see  that  the  death  of  their 
Messiah  was  not  an  accident,  and  not  a  fact  unfavor- 
able to  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus ;  but  that  it  was 
rather  a  clear  part  of  the  divine  plan  and  a  neces- 
sary preparation  for  Messianic  glory. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  Synoptic  words  of  Jesus 
which  refer  to  His  death  as  having  significance  for 
others  than  Himself.  There  are  but  two  of  these 
sayings,  for  the  word  about  the  sign  of  Jonah  has, 
as  we  have  seen,  nothing  to  teach  on  this  subject. 
The  first  of  the  two  passages  is  the  word  which 
Jesus  spoke  to  His  disciples  as  they  journeyed  for 
the  last  time  toward  Jerusalem.  He  declares  that 
the  Son  of  man  came  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for 
many  (Mk.  x.  45  ;  Mt.  xx.  28).  He  had  just  laid 
upon  His  disciples  the  necessity  of  serving  one  another. 
Their  spirit  must  be  the  opposite  of  that  which  exists 
in  the  world,  where  great  ones  exercise  authority  and 
lord  it  over  the  masses.  The  ground  which  Jesus  gives 
for  this  law  of  service  is  His  own  example.  He  came 
to  serve ;  therefore  His  disciples  should  serve.  Now 
the  example  of  the  Son  of  man  apparently  covers  both 
the  infinitive    clauses  in    this    weighty    sentence.      He 


THE   MESSIAH'S    EARTHLY   WORK  263 

came  to  minister  and  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for 
many.  The  giving  of  His  life  is  the  final  and  culminat- 
ing act  of  ministering.  It  is  the  highest  evidence  that 
He  has  a  true  spirit  of  service.  Thus  Jesus  refers  to 
His  own  life  as  furnishing  a  law  to  His  disciples,  and  it 
seems  impossible  to  interpret  the  passage  as  meaning 
that  the  disciples  can  imitate  Jesus  in  serving,  but  not 
in  laying  down  their  lives.  This  interpretation  would  run 
directly  against  more  than  one  explicit  word  of  Jesus. 
He  repeatedly  told  His  disciples  that  they  must  be  will- 
ing to  lay  down  life  for  His  sake  and  the  Gospel's  {e.g. 
Mt.  x.  21-22).  He  said  that  if  any  one  would  come 
after  Him,  he  must  take  up  the  cross  (Mk.  viii.  34), 
and  that  in  order  to  save  one's  life,  one  must  lose  it 
(Mk.  viii.  35).  Thus,  the  teaching  of  Jesus  elsewhere 
confirms  the  natural,  grammatical  understanding  of  Mk. 
x.  45,  which  makes  the  example  of  Jesus  that  is  to  be  imi- 
tated by  His  disciples  an  example  which  consists  in  serving 
and  in  laying  down  life  as  a  ransom.  Thus  the  logical  con- 
nection of  the  verse  with  the  preceding  seems  to  mark  off, 
at  the  outset,  the  general  meaning  of  the'word  ransom. 
It  is  to  be  noticed,  in  the  next  place,  that  the  thought 
of  the  word  ransom,  since  neither  this  term  nor  any 
word  from  the  same  root  is  elsewhere  used  by  Jesus, 
must  be  understood  in  the  light  of  His  teaching  in 
regard  to  the  conditions  of  His  salvation.  Now  the 
word  ransom  implies  that  those  for  whom  it  is  given 


264  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

are  in  a  state  of  bondage.1  This  bondage  in  which 
the  many  are  held  can  be  understood,  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  in  one  way  only :  it  is  the  bondage  of  sin.2 
Jesus  gives  His  life  to  deliver  them  from  this  bondage. 
It  is  not  said  that  He  gives  His  life  in  place  of  the  lives 
of  many,  though  the  Greek  preposition  here  used  often 
has  this  meaning.  That  cannot  be  the  sense  of  the 
word  here,  for  the  many  have  no  longer  lives  to  give, 
if  they  would.  They  are  in  bondage ;  their  lives  are 
already  given  away  to  sin.  In  the  language  of  Jesus 
used  elsewhere,  they  are  dead.  It  is  impossible,  then, 
to  introduce  here  the  thought  that  the  life  of  Jesus 
is  given  instead  of  the  lives  of  many.  Moreover,  in 
cases  of  exchange,  as  when  Esau  sold  his  birthright 
for  one  mess  of  meat(Heb.  xii.  16),  and  Jesus  endured 
the  cross  for  the  joy  that  was  set  before  Him  (Heb.  xii. 
2),  the  preposition  employed  is  the  same  that  we  have 
in  the  verse  under  consideration,  where  it  is  said  that 
Jesus  came  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many.  This 
usage,  therefore,  suggests  that  Jesus  gives  up  His 
life  and  gets  the  many  in  return.  They  become  His 
possession,  won  by  His  sacrifice  in  their  behalf,  or, 
as  the  fourth  Gospel  says,  drawn  by  the  power  of 
Jesus   when    He    is   lifted    up   (Jn.    xii.     32).     So    the 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  51 1-5 13;   Beyschlag,  Nentestament- 
liche  'J'heologie,  i.  154. 

2  Comp.  Holtzmann,  I.ehrbuch  der  neiitestamentlichen  7/ieo/ogie,  i.  292. 


THE   MESSIAH'S    EARTHLY   WORK  265 

thought  of  the  passage  under  consideration  is  that  of 
delivering  men  from  the  bondage  of  sin,  winning  them 
to  discipleship,  by  the  laying  down  of  Jesus'  life. 

Now  Jesus  had  already  been  accomplishing  this  very 
end  by  means  of  His  Messianic  ministry.  He  had 
made  the  Father  known,  and  through  the  influence 
of  His  teaching  and  His  presence  men  had  come  into 
possession  of  a  new  life.  They  had  been  ransomed, 
and  had  found  rest  unto  their  souls  (Mk.  ii.  5  ;  Mt.  x. 
40;  xi.  25,  etc.).  A  personal  allegiance  to  Jesus  had 
been  developed  in  them  which  was  sufficiently  strong 
to  control  their  thought  and  life.  If,  then,  by  His 
revelation  of  the  Father  He  had  led  men  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  during  His  ministry,  He  could 
do  no  higher  thing  by  His  death.  He  might  con- 
ceivably ransom  more  by  His  death  than  He  had 
ransomed  by  His  ministry ;  but  the  deliverance  would 
be  the  same  kind  of  deliverance  that  He  had  already 
accomplished  in  His  life. 

We  cannot  say,  therefore,  that  when  Jesus  speaks 
of  giving  His  life  a  ransom  for  'many,  He  represents 
His  death,  apart  j to >m  His  life,  as  absolutely  necessary 
to  the  salvation  of  men.  He  had  taught  that  God 
freely  forgives  the  penitent,  and  He  had  Himself  wel- 
comed many  penitent  souls  into  the  kingdom  of  God 
without  any  allusion  to  His  own  death.  We  are,  there- 
fore, plainly  constrained  to  say  that,  so  far  as  Mk.  x.  45 


266  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

is  concerned,  Jesus  regarded  His  death  as  a  service  of 
the  same  sort  as  the  service  of  His  life.  It  naturally 
had  an  intenser  meaning  than  belonged  to  any  other 
single  act  of  His  divine  ministry,  for  the  highest  that  a 
man  has  to  give  in  proof  of  his  love  is  his  life ;  but 
the  meaning,  though  more  intense,  is  not  essentially 
different.  If  the  death  of  Jesus  was  necessary,  so  in 
like  manner  was  His  life  necessary.  If  His  death 
ransomed,  so,  also,  had  His  life. 

The  other  passage  concerning  the  significance  which, 
in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  His  death  had  for  others  than 
Himself,  is  the  account  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  "the 
weightiest,  most  precise,  and  defining  expression  which 
He  has  yet  used."  * 

Of  the  bread  which  He  took  before  the  wine  He 
said:  "This  is  my  body"  (Mk.  xiv.  22;  Mt.  xxvi.  26), 
or,  "This  is  my  body  given  for  you"  (Lk.  xxii.  19), 
and  "Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me"  (Lk.  xxii.  19), 
that  is,  Eat  this  in  remembrance  of  me. 

The  bread  represents  His  body  which  is  given  for 
the  disciples,  that  is,  naturally,  given  to  suffering  and 
death.  This  thought  is  required  by  the  context.  The 
body  must  needs  be  broken,  or  given  to  suffering  and 
death,  in  order  that  the  blood  may  be  shed,  and  the 
shedding  of  His  blood  is  necessarily  presupposed  by 
the    symbolic    use   which  is   made   of  it   in   the    subse- 

1  See  Fairbairn,  Expositor,  1897,  v°l-  v-  P*  25- 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  267 

quent  verses.  In  Mark  and  Matthew  this  thought  is 
not  expressed.  The  bread  is  simply  given  to  the 
disciples,  and  they  eat  it.  But  the  very  fact  that 
Jesus  gives  the  bread  to  them  implies  that  it  is  for 
their  good,  the  thought  that  is  expressed  in  Luke  and 
Paul  (Lk.  xxii.  19;  1  Cor.  xi.  24);  and  the  fact  that 
the  bread,  which  symbolizes  the  body  of  Jesus,  must 
of  necessity  be  broken  into  pieces  in  order  that  each 
disciple  may  partake,  implies  the  thought,  which  is 
expressed  in  Luke,  that  it  is  given  to  suffering  and 
death.  And  since  the  bread  symbolizes  the  body  of 
Jesus,  to  partake  of  it  inevitably  turns  the  thought  to 
Him,  and  so  the  act  has  a  memorial  character,  as 
Luke  and  Paul  explicitly  teach. 

We  have,  then,  in  all  the  Synoptic  narratives,  ex- 
pressed or  implied,  these  thoughts  regarding  the  body 
of  Jesus  which  is  symbolized  by  the  bread :  first, 
that  the  giving  of  the  body  of  Jesus  to  death  is  for 
the  good  of  the  disciples ;  second,  that  they  experience 
the  benefit  of  this  act  of  His  as  they  do  the  thing 
that  is  symbolized  by  the  eating  of  the  bread.  Now 
since  the  bread  represents  His  body  given  to  death 
for  them,  to  eat  the  bread  symbolizes  the  spiritual 
appropriation  of  Jesus  as  one  who  had  given  His 
life  for  them.  And,  third,  we  have  the  thought  that 
eating  this  bread  is  a  memorial  service  which  brings 
Him  to  their  minds. 


268  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Now,  as  far  as  the  meaning  of  the  death  of  Jesus 
is  concerned,  this  first  part  of  the  Lord's  Supper  con- 
tains only  the  general  thought  that  it  is  for  the  good  of 
the  disciples.  There  is  great  emphasis  given  to  this 
thought  by  the  fact  that  Jesus,  formally  and  in  a  most 
sacred  hour,  instituted  the  observance.  This  emphasis 
is  further  heightened  by  the  circumstance  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  the  only  outward  observance  which 
Jesus  did  enjoin  upon   His  disciples. 

But  this  thought  that  the  death  of  Jesus  is  for  the 
good  of  the  disciples *is  not  here  more  nearly  defined. 
Hozv  it  is  for  their  good  is  not  said.  There  is,  indeed, 
a  suggestion  in  the  fact  that  the  bread  must  be  broken 
in  order  that  the  disciples  may  partake  of  it ;  and  the 
suggestion  is  this,  that  the  death  of  Jesus  is  necessary 
in  order  that  His  disciples  may  appropriate  Him.  But 
this  suggestion,  thus  stated,  is  not  true,  for  the  disci- 
ples had  already  appropriated  Jesus.  They  had  given 
their  allegiance  to  Him,  and  He  was  their  hope  and 
joy.  They  had  appreciated  His  love,  and  fed  upon  it. 
But  they  had  not  appreciated  it  as  it  would  be  possible 
for  them  to  do  in  case  He  should  die  for  them.  We 
may  then  hold,  as  a  suggestion  of  the  text,  that  the 
death  of  Jesus  was  to  be  for  the  good  of  the  disciples, 
because  it  would  promote  their  appropriation  of  Him, 
their  use  of  Him  as  spiritual  nourishment.  This  sug- 
gestion appears  to  be  confirmed  by  the  service  of  Jesus 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  269 

as  a  whole.  For  the  very  aim  of  His  work  was  that 
men  should  accept  Him  as  Messiah,  and  then  live  in 
obedience  to  Him.  To  this  end  He  gave  Himself  to 
them  in  a  continuous  service  of  love.  The  culminating 
act  in  this  life  of  love  was  the  laying  down  of  life  itself. 
All  His  ministries  had  been  for  the  good  of  the  disci- 
ples, just  as  this  was.  All  had  been  for  the  purpose 
of  binding  them  to  Him  and  reproducing  His  spirit  in 
them.  But  the  laying  down  of  life  for  them,  as  the 
last  and  supreme  manifestation  of  His  love,  was  for 
that  reason  peculiarly  adapted  to  strengthen  their 
personal  attachment  to  Him,  and  therefore  peculiarly 
adapted   to  enable  them  to  appropriate   His  spirit. 

This  suggestion,  then,  which  the  text  itself  fur- 
nishes in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  death  of 
Jesus,  as  far  as  the  first  act  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
involves  the  thought  of  death,  commends  itself  be- 
cause it  views  the  death  of  Jesus  as  in  harmony  with 
His  life.  And  the  very  fact  that  Jesus  did  not  explain 
how  His  death  was  for  the  good  of  the  disciples  is  a 
strong  argument  for  the  view  that  this  Jiozv  must  be 
understood  in  the  light  of  the  life  of  Jesus  as  a  whole. 
Had  its  meaning,  in  His  mind,  been  foreign  to  the 
general  teaching  of  His  ministry,  then  He  could  not 
have  left  it  to  be  inferred. 

We  pass  now  to  the  second  part  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  in   its  bearing  upon  the   thought  which   Jesus 


270  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

had  in  regard  to  the  significance  of  His  death  for 
others.  All  the  Synoptists  agree  that  Jesus  referred 
to  His  blood  as  covenant  blood  (Mk.  xiv.  24 ;  Mt.  xxvi. 
28 ;  Lk.  xxii.  20).  Mark  and  Matthew  say,  "  This  is 
my  blood  of  the  covenant,"  and  Luke  says,  "  This 
cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood."  In  speaking 
of  His  blood  as  blood  of  the  new  covenant,  Jesus 
recognizes  a  parallelism  between  it  and  the  blood  of 
some  well-known  old  covenant.1  Now  the  great  cove- 
nant of  the  olden  time  was  the  covenant  between 
Jehovah  and  Israel  by  the  hand  of  Moses  at  Mt. 
Sinai  (Ex.  xix.  xxiv.).  Jehovah  said  to  the  people 
through  Moses,  "  If  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed, 
and  keep  my  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar 
treasure  unto  me  from  among  all  peoples  (Ex.  xix.  5); 
and  all  the  people  answered  and  said,  All  that  Je- 
hovah hath  spoken  will  we  do  "  (Ex.  xix.  8).  Then 
again,  after  some  days,  in  which  Jehovah  gave  to 
Moses  the  ten  words  and  other  commandments,  Moses 
came  to  the  people  and  told  them  what  Jehovah  had 
said ;  and  they  all  answered  with  one  voice  and  said, 
"  All  the  words  which  Jehovah  hath  spoken  will  we 
do  "  (Ex.  xxiv.  3).  Then  Moses  built  an  altar  under 
Mt.  Sinai,  and  offered  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offer- 
ings unto  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxiv.  4,  5).     He  took  the  blood, 

1  Comp.    Wendt,   Die   I.ehre  Jesu,  ii.   518;    Holtzmann,  Lehrbuch  der 
neutesiamentlichen  Theologie,  i.  297. 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  271 

sprinkled  half  of  it  on  the  altar,  and  after  reading 
again  the  words  of  Jehovah,  to  which  the  people  re- 
sponded as  before,  he  sprinkled  the  other  half  of  the 
blood  upon  the  people,  saying,  "  Behold,  the  blood  of 
the  covenant  which  Jehovah  hath  made  with  you 
concerning  all  these  words "   (Ex.  xxiv.   8). 

The  blood  which  Moses  sprinkled  upon  the  people 
was  a  visible  token  that  they  pledged  themselves  to 
be  obedient  unto  the  Lord.  It  was  the  solemn  seal  of 
their  covenant.1  The  covenant  was  made  when  the 
people  accepted  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  and  thrice 
promised  to  be  obedient  to  them.  Consequently  the 
blood  which  was  afterward  sprinkled  upon  them  was 
not  the  ground  or  basis  of  the  covenant.2  It  was  a 
solemn  ratification  of  the  compact.  It  sacredly  bound 
the  two  parties,  Jehovah  and  Israel,  to  keep  their 
promises  to  each  other.  There  is  no  intimation  what- 
ever in  the  story  that  this  blood  was  designed  to  have 
any  purifying  influence  upon  the  people. 

Accordingly,  when  Jesus  spoke  of  His  blood  as 
blood  of  the  new  covenant,  the  presumption  is  that 
He  thought  of  it  as  a  solemn  seal  of  an  already  exist- 
ing covenant.  His  death,  therefore,  is  not  here  pre- 
sented as  an  act  by  virtue  of  which  men  are  admitted 
into  the  favor  of  God,  but  as  an  act  which    solemnly 

1  Comp.  Dillmann,  Commentar  ilber  die  B ticker  Exodus  nnd  Leviticus. 

2  Comp.  Delitzsch,  Briefe  an  die  Hebr'der,  p.  414. 


272  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

assures  them  that  they  are  now  the  objects  of  His 
favor,  their  covenant  with  God  being  sealed  with  the 
blood  of  Jesus.1  This  thought  is  not  only  made 
probable  by  the  Old  Testament  scene  which  the 
language  of  Jesus  calls  up,  but  it  is  also  required  by 
the  fact  that  Jesus  addressed  these  words  to  men  who 
were  already  members  of  His  kingdom.  The  signifi- 
cance of  this  fact  is  very  great.  By  their  acceptance 
of  Jesus  and  His  revelation  of  the  Father,  the  disciples 
had  become  as  houses  built  upon  a  rock  (Mt.  vii.  24), 
their  names  had  been  written  in  heaven  (Lk.  x.  20), 
and  they  had  chosen  the  good  part  which  should  not 
be  taken  away  from  them  (Lk.  x.  42).  When  the 
Israelites  accepted  the  book  of  the  covenant  and  said, 
"  All  that  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do,  and  be 
obedient,"  they  entered  into  covenant  with  Jehovah. 
So  when  men  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  sent  by 
the  Father,  they  entered  into  covenant  with  God  and 
God  with  them  ;  and  they  received  the  blessings  of 
forgiveness  and  life,  which  the  Father  sent  Jesus  to 
communicate.  The  wine  which  symbolized  the  blood 
of  Jesus  was  a  visible  pledge  of  the  covenant  which 
Jesus  had  established  between  His  Father  and  His 
disciples.  It  was  a  solemn  seal  and  ratification.  The 
authority  of  the  pledge  was  the  authority  of  the 
Messiah    put   in    the    most   intense    form   possible,    for 

1  See  Fairbairn,  Expositor,  1897,  vo1-  v-  P-  2§- 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY    WORK  273 

the  pledge  was  His  own  life-blood  freely  shed.  As 
they  accepted  the  wine  which  symbolized  that  blood, 
they  thereby  pledged  themselves  to  God  in  the  most 
solemn  and  sacred  manner  conceivable.  The  blood 
was  the  blood  of  their  Messiah,  their  redeemer,  their 
personal  and  divine  friend.  A  covenant  sealed  with 
His  blood  bound  them  as  nothing  else  could.  The 
motive  of  gratitude  to  Jesus  and  love  for  Him  —  a 
motive  which  would  be  renewed  with  every  observance 
of  the  Supper  —  must  hold  them  to  their  allegiance  with 
unwasting  force.  This  covenant  was  a  covenant  of 
love,  a  covenant  which  involved  a  spiritual  apprehen- 
sion of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  a  covenant  to  be  true 
to  God  as  revealed  in  Christ ;  and  so  it  was  indeed  a 
new  covenant,  as  Luke  calls  it  (comp.  Jer.  xxxi.  31). 

But  this  statement  does  not  exhaust  the  significance 
of  the  wine,  or  the  blood  which  it  symbolizes.  It  is, 
indeed,  a  divine  seal  on  a  covenant  of  infinite  love ; 
but  this  is  not  all.  The  blood  of  the  old  covenant 
was  sprinkled  upon  the  people,  or  rather  upon  a  few 
who  represented  the  entire  host ;  the  blood  of  the 
new  covenant,  under  the  symbol  of  wine,  is  drunk 
by  each  disciple.  This  act  is  obviously  parallel  to 
that  of  eating  the  bread,  which  symbolizes  the  body 
of  Jesus.  The  blood  which  seals  the  covenant  has 
also  the  profounder  significance  of  suggesting  how 
the  disciple  can  remain  loyal  to  the  covenant,  namely, 


274  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

by  appropriating  the  very  life  of  Jesus.  Partaking 
of  the  wine  is  not  different  from  partaking  of  the 
bread,  unless  we  regard  it  as  a  more  intense  symbol.1 
Each  act  is  symbolic  of  a  spiritual  appropriation  of 
Jesus.  But  the  appropriation  of  Him  is  emphasized 
by  the  two  symbols  of  food  and  drink,  for  the  thought 
is  thus  expressed  that  the  entire  spiritual  nourishment 
of  the  disciple  is  found  in  Jesus  the  Messiah.  There- 
fore the  significance  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  as  seen 
through  the  second  part  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  the 
significance  of  the  first  part,  namely,  that  His  death 
promotes  the  appropriation  of  Him ;  and  it  is  also 
the  significance  of  a  seal  upon  the  covenant  which 
Jesus  has  established  between  God  and  His  disciples. 

It  remains  to  consider  a  statement  which  Matthew 
has  in  regard  to  the  significance  of  the  blood  of  Jesus 
as  symbolized  by  the  wine  (Mt.  xxvi.  28).  He  says 
this  blood  is  shed  unto  remission  of  sins.  It  seems 
probable  that  these  words  are  an  addition  by  the 
evangelist,  or,  at  any  rate,  are  not  words  of  Jesus. 
They  are  not  only  wanting  in  Mark  and  Luke,  but 
also  in  Paul,  whose  teaching  concerning  the  blood 
of  Jesus  would  hardly  have  allowed  him  to  omit 
these  words  from  his  account  of  the  institution  of  the 
Supper,  if  he  had  known  them  and  had  regarded 
them    as    spoken    by   Jesus.       Moreover,    these   words 

1  Comp.  Hoffmann,  Die  Abendmahlsgedanken  Jesu  Christi,  p.  96. 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  275 

seem  to  obscure  the  reference  to  the  blood  as  blood 
of  the  covenant,  which  are  common  to  all  the  four 
versions  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  for 
the  blood  of  the  covenant,  historically  understood,  was 
not  "unto  remission  of  sins."  Further,  these  words  of 
Matthew  seem  not  to  be  in  harmony  with  Luke's 
version,  for  he  says,  "  shed  for  yon"  that  is,  for  the 
disciples,  whose  sins  had  been  forgiven  already.1 

But  while  the  genuineness  of  these  words  of  Mat- 
thew may  be  called  in  question,  the  thought  which 
they  contain  is  not  foreign  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 
They  do  not  suggest  that  forgiveness  necessarily  rests 
upon  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  on  this  alone.  Mat- 
thew says  that  the  blood  is  shed  unto  forgiveness  of 
sins.  He  does  not  say  that  the  blood  must  be  shed 
in  order  that  sin  may  be  forgiven.  Jesus  was  speak- 
ing to  those  whose  sins  had  been  pardoned,  and  not 
on  the  ground  of  His  death.  Some  of  them  became 
His  disciples  before  He  had  even  alluded  to  His 
death.  To  interpret  the  statement  of  Matthew  to 
mean  that  the  blood  of  Jesus  must  be  shed  in  order 
that  sin  may  be  forgiven,  would  be  to  make  Jesus 
overthrow  His  own  Gospel  of  the  fatherhood  of  God, 
and  would  set  His  word  and  His  practice  in  sharp 
conflict  with  each  other. 

1  Hoffmann,  Die  Abendmahlsgcdanken  Jesu  Christi,  pp.  68-69,  rejects 
the  words  for  you,  saying  that  Jesus  did  not  lay  down  His  life  for  His 
disciples,  but  for  unbelievers. 


276  THE   REVELATION  OF  JESUS 

We  say  that  Matthew's  words  "unto  remission  of 
sins"  do  not  contain  a  thought  which  is  foreign  to 
the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Since  the  death  of  Jesus  was 
a  part  of  His  Messianic  work,  it  could  be  said  of 
this,  as  of  His  entire  ministry,  that  it  was  unto  re- 
mission of  sins.  Forgiveness  of  sins  was  the  first 
great  end  which  the  Messiah  sought  to  realize,  for 
this  must  precede  the  reign  of  God  in  the  heart.  The 
entire  revelation  of  the  Father  which  Jesus  gave  was 
unto  remission  of  sins.  His  deeds  of  love  and  mercy 
were,  in  an  important  sense,  unto  forgiveness  of  sins. 
He  came  to  call  sinners  to  repentance,  to  seek  and 
to  save  that  which  was  lost ;  and  so  we  might  write  over 
His  entire  ministry,  as  expressing  the  first  stage  in  the 
establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  these  words,  "  Unto 
remission  of  sins."  In  this  sense,  and  in  this  sense 
only,  can  the  retention  of  Matthew's  words  be  justified. 

In  passing  from  the  Synoptists  to  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel we  are  soon  impressed  by  two  facts  in  regard  to 
the  present  topic  of  study :  first,  by  the 
teaching  of  greater  frequency  of  the  references  of  Jesus 
regardtoHis  to  His  deatn  5  and,  second,  by  the  simplicity 
death  an(j    uniformity    of    their    content.        Jesus 

according  to  J 

the  fourth       speaks  of  His  death  in  one  way  only  :  it  is 

Gospel. 

an  act  of  self-revelation.  And  hence  the 
purpose  of  His  death  is  not  different  from  the  pur- 
pose of  His  life. 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  277 

The  first  allusion  that  Jesus  makes  to  His  death  in 
the  fourth  Gospel  is  obscure.  It  was  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  first  Passover  in  His  ministry,  and  He 
was  in  the  temple.  The  Jews  asked  for  a  sign  of 
His  authority  after  He  had  cleansed  the  temple,  and 
the  reply  of  Jesus  was,  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and 
in  three  days  I  will  build  it  up"  (Jn.  ii.  19).  If  the 
temple  was  a  figure  for  the  body  of  Jesus,  as  the 
evangelist  thought  (Jn.  ii.  21),  then  Jesus  said,  in 
substance,  that  His  resurrection  would  be  a  proof  of 
His  Messianic  authority.  His  death  is,  of  course,  in- 
volved, but  nothing  is  directly  suggested  in  regard 
to  its  meaning.  This  saying,  therefore,  is  similar  in 
its  main  purport  to  the  Synoptic  word  regarding  the 
sign  of  Jonah. 

Again,  Jesus  says  that  the  Son  of  man  must  be 
lifted  up,  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  brazen  serpent  in 
the  wilderness  (Jn.  iii.  14).  Now  the  serpent  was 
lifted  up  on  a  pole  in  order  that  it  might  be  seen, 
because  the  sight  of  it  was  a  divinely  appointed 
remedy  for  the  bite  of  the  fiery  serpents  (Num.  xxi.  8). 
Accordingly,  the  lifting  up  of  the  Son  of  man,  which 
Jesus  puts  in  parallelism  with  the  lifting  up  of  the 
brazen  serpent,  is  naturally  thought  of  as  an  event 
that  is  necessary  in  order  that  He  may  be  made 
manifest,  that  His  character  may  be  known.  This 
view  is  definitely  established  by  another  passage  which 


278  THE  .REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

speaks  of  the  lifting  up  of  the  Son  of  man.  At  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles,  in  the  last  year  of  the  minis- 
try of  Jesus,  He  said  to  the  Jews,  "When  ye  have  lifted 
up  the  Son  of  man,  then  shall  ye  know  that  I  am  he  " 
(Jn.  viii.  28).  Their  knowledge  of  His  Messiahship  is 
thus  thought  of  as  a  consequence  of  His  being  lifted 
up ;  and  we  may  hold  that  this  consequence  shows  the 
purpose  of  His  being  lifted  up,  or  at  least  one  purpose 
of  it.  Thus  the  meaning  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  accord- 
ing to  this  passage,  is  that  it  makes  His  Messianic 
character  known.     It  reveals  Him  to  men. 

Now  it  is  true  that  the  crucifixion,  considered  by  itself, 
did  not  have  any  such  effect  as  this  upon  the  Jews. 
His  crucifixion,  regarded  from  the  human  point  of 
view,  marked  the  lowest  ebb  of  His  cause.  But  the 
crucifixion  is  not  to  be  separated  from  its  great  and 
necessary  concomitants, — the  resurrection,  the  ascen- 
sion, and  the  sending  of  the  Spirit.  It  was  all  these 
events  together  which  constituted  the  final  proof  of 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  Yet  inasmuch  as  His 
death  was  the  fact  which  revealed  His  inmost  spirit, 
not  His  resurrection,  or  ascension,  this  might  surely 
be  put  forward  as  the  vital  and  determining  element 
in  the  proof  of  Messiahship  which  Jesus  said  that 
the  Jews  should  have. 

Again,  we  have  the  thought  of  self-revelation  by 
death  when  Jesus   says    that    He    lays    down    His    life 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  279 

for  the  sheep  (Jn.  x.  11-18;  comp.  xv.  13).  The 
statement  that  He  lays  down  His  life  is  made  in 
proof  of  the  declaration  that  He  is  the  good  shepherd. 
The  hireling  is  proven  to  be  a  hireling,  when  the 
wolf  comes,  for  he  leaves  the  sheep  and  flees.  But 
the  good  shepherd  is  manifested  as  such  by  the  sac- 
rifice of  himself  in  behalf  of  the  sheep.  Thus  the 
fact  of  death  is  adduced  in  showing  the  character  of 
the  shepherd,  and  not  because  of  its  significance  with 
regard  to  the  deliverance  of  the  sheep. 

Once  more  we  have  the  same  general  view  of  His 
death  when  Jesus  speaks  of  the  hour  of  His  glorifi- 
cation (Jn.  xii.  23).  It  is  plain  from  the  context  that 
He  is  thinking  of  the  hour  of  His  death.  This  will 
glorify  Him,  He  says,  and  will  also  glorify  the  name 
of  His  Father  (Jn.  xii.  27-28).  How  the  suffering  of 
death  will  glorify  Him  is  not  said,  but  it  may  be 
safely  inferred  from  the  seventeenth  chapter,  where 
the  glorification  of  Jesus  and  the  Father,  both  past 
and  future,  is  accomplished  through  the  manifestation 
of  their  character  and  the  acceptance  of  their  revela- 
tion by  men.  The  cross  glorifies  Jesus  because  it 
reveals  His  love,  and  as  it  reveals  Him  it  reveals  the 
Father.  Now  since  the  lifting  up  of  Jesus  is  His  glori- 
fication, He  can  say  that,  when  lifted  up,  He  will  draw 
all  men  unto  Himself  (Jn.  xii.  32).  For  when  men 
see  Him  as    He  is,  when  they  know    His  heart,  they 


280  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

are  drawn  to  Him.  According  to  this  passage,  there- 
fore, the  death  of  Jesus  is  regarded  as  the  culminating 
manifestation  of  His  character.  It  differs  from  His 
acts  of  mercy  and  words  of  love  only  in  degree.  It 
is  the  same  essential  thought,  but  written  in  His  own 
life-blood. 

And  it  is  to  be  especially  noticed  in  this  connection 
that,  according  to  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  the  sole  significance  of  His  death  in  relation 
to  God  is,  that  God  is  "  glorified  "  thereby.  There  is 
no  suggestion  of  any  other  meaning  which  it  has. 
It  glorifies  Jesus,  it  glorifies  the  Father,  even  as  the 
Father  had  already  been  glorified  by  the  life  of  Jesus. 
There  is  here  no  intimation  that  the  death  of  Jesus 
changes  the  attitude  of  God  toward  men.  It  glorifies 
Him  in  that  it  reveals  Him.  As  the  death  of  Jesus 
did  not  change  His  attitude  toward  men  while  glori- 
fying Him,  no  more,  according  to  this  Gospel,  did  it 
change  the  attitude  of  God  toward  men.  It  is  not 
an  event  that  secures  His  love,  but  an  event  that 
reveals  and  seals  His  love.  No  other  aspect  of  His 
death  in  its  relation  to  God  is  touched  by  Jesus. 

And  it  is  to  be  remembered  here  for  what  purpose 
John  wrote.  It  was  that  his  readers  might  believe  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ,  and  believing  might  have  life  in 
His  name  (Jn.  xx.  31).  Therefore  we  must  hold  that, 
in  his  presentation  of  the  work  of  Jesus,  he  mentioned 


THE   MESSIAH'S    EARTHLY   WORK  28 1 

every  element  which,  in  his  judgment,  was  essential  to 
the  securing  of  life  in  Jesus'  name.  Hence,  in  his 
view,  the  vital  aspect  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  both  in 
regard  to  Jesus  and  in  regard  to  God,  was  that  it  re- 
vealed the  character  both  of  Jesus  and  of  God. 

In  the  saying  about  the  grain  of  wheat  (Jn.  xii.  24- 
25),  the  suggestion  is,  that  as  the  death  of  the  individ- 
ual kernel  is  followed  by  much  fruit,  so  the  death  of 
Jesus  will  have  much  fruitage.  But  the  simile  does  not 
suggest  how  it  comes  about  that  the  death  of  Jesus  pro- 
duces a  rich  harvest.  This  question  must  be  answered, 
therefore,  in  the  light  of  the  other  passages  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  relating  to  the  death  of  Jesus ;  and  the  answer 
from  this  source  is  that  the  death  of  Jesus  brings  rich 
fruitage  of  disciples  because  it  makes  His  inmost  spirit 
and  character  known. 

There  remains  yet  one  word  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  which  involves  a  reference  to  His  death,  and 
that  is  the  word  which  was  spoken  in  the  synagogue  in 
Capernaum  about  eating  His  flesh  and  drinking  His 
blood  (Jn.  vi.  51-63').  This  passage  may  be  said  to 
imply  the  necessity  of  His  death  ;  for  though  the  figure 
of  eating  His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood  contains  no 
essential  thought  which  is  not  involved  in  believing,  He 
could  nevertheless  hardly  have  used  the  figure  except 
in  the  certain  anticipation  of  His  own  death.  But  if 
the  passage  suggests  the  necessity  of  His  death,  it  also 


282  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

suggests  that  it  is  necessary  in  order  that  He  may  be 
appropriated.  It  has  no  other  suggestion  in  regard  to 
the  ground  of  the  necessity.  The  prominent  thought 
of  the  entire  discourse  is  not  the  death  of  Jesus,  but  the 
appropriation  of  Him.  His  death  is  subordinate  to  this 
thought,  and  is  mentioned  only  to  give  to  it  an  intensely 
vivid  expression.  But  the  appropriation  of  Jesus  is  pro- 
moted by  His  death  because  that  death,  being  the  su- 
preme manifestation  of  His  love,  helps  men  to  under- 
stand Him  and  draws  them  to  Him. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  thought  of  the  death  of  Jesus 
is  essentially  the  same  as  the  thought  of  His  words 
regarding  the  bread  and  the  wine  of  the  Last  Supper, 
if  we  except  the  reference  to  the  blood  as  blood  of  the 
covenant.  Eating  the  bread  and  drinking  the  wine,  as 
emblems  of  the  body  and  the  blood  of  Jesus,  are  expres- 
sive of  the  same  fundamental  thought  that  we  have 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  namely,  a  personal,  vital 
appropriation  of  Jesus. 

Such,  then,  is  the  view  of  His  death  which  Jesus 
presents  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  It  is  the  glorious  con- 
summation of  the  revelation  of  Jesus,  and  so  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  Father.  It  belongs  in  the  same  class  with 
the  words  and  works  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  presented  as 
being  absolutely  necessary  to  the  deliverance  of  men 
from  sin,  for  Jesus  said  to  His  disciples  on  the  last 
evening,  "  Ye  are  clean  "  (Jn.  xiii.  10  ;  xv.  3).     They  had 


THE   MESSIAH'S   EARTHLY   WORK  283 

already  been  bathed  by  the  hearty  acceptance  of  Jesus 
as  their  Saviour  and  Lord.  Jesus  was  already  glorified 
in  them  (Jn.  xvii.  10),  because  they  had  received  the 
words  which  the  Father  had  given  to  Him,  and  had 
believed  that  He  was  sent  from  God  (Jn.  xvii.  8).  Their 
sins  had  been  forgiven,  and  as  in  the  Synoptists,  so  here, 
this  forgiveness  is  not  brought  by  Jesus  into  connection 
with  His  death.  Therefore  we  say  that  the  death  of 
Jesus  is  not  presented  in  the  fourth  Gospel  as  necessary 
to  salvation  except  as  His  self-revelation  in  general  was 
necessary  to  salvation.  It  was  a  part  of  His  Messianic 
work  and  His  Messianic  revelation  of  the  Father,  the 
most  intense  part,  and  that  which  best  represents  the 
spirit  of  it  all ;  but  the  fourth  Gospel  does  not  attribute 
to  it  a  necessity  which  does  not  belong  equally  to  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  in  His  holy  life  and  divine  teaching. 


CHAPTER   VII 

The  Consummation  of  the  Messiah's  Kingdom 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  the  Last  Things 
is  almost  wholly  personal  and  Messianic  in  character. 
introduction.  He  is  the  central  figure  in  the  future  devel- 
dementTnna  opment  and  consummation  of  the  kingdom 
Jesus'  0f  q0a   as  j-[e  |s  central  in  the  kingdom  of 

thought  of  '  ° 

the  future.  the  present.  What  He  says  of  the  fate  of 
men  after  death  is  not  only  subordinate  to  what  He 
says  of  His  own  personal  future,  but  it  is  part  and 
parcel  of  that  future.  Therefore  in  studying  the 
thought  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  death  and  what  comes 
after  death,  for  His  disciphs  and  for  men  in  general, 
we  must  study  it  in  closest  connection  with  what  He 
taught  about  His  own  future.  In  His  references  to 
that  future,  the  central  thought  is  the  full  realization  by 
Him  of  the  Messianic  purpose.  This  purpose  had  be- 
gun to  be  realized  by  the  work  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher,  and 
had  been  realized  still  further  by  His  death,  which  com- 
pleted His  revelation  of  the  Father,  and  which  was  at 
the  same  time  the  last  and  highest  act  in  His  own  self- 
revelation;  but  the  realization  of  this  Messianic  purpose 

284 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S   KINGDOM         285 

was  to  be  promoted  and  consummated  by  the  activity 
of  the  Messiah  after  His  death.  Now  as  the  thought 
of  Jesus  in  regard  to  the  present  life  of  men  laid  su- 
preme stress  upon  their  attitude  toward  Him  and  His 
kingdom,  so  in  His  thought  regarding  their  future 
destiny  He  proceeds  along  the  same  line.  He  does 
not  speak  of  that  destiny  in  an  abstract  manner,  but 
He  speaks  of  it  in  a  personal  and  concrete  way,  as 
being  a  matter  of  relationship  to  Him,  and  bound  up 
with  His  own  Messianic  destiny. 

In  Jesus'  thought  of  the  future  we  begin  with  res?ir- 
rection,  for  though  this,  of  course,  presupposes  death, 
death  is  not  a  subject  on  which  Jesus  has  1.  Resurrec- 
left  any  teaching.  He  said  of  the  daughter  fl>  The 
of  Jairus,  when  she  was  dead,  "  She  sleeps"  f°^°* 
(Mk.  v.  39),  and  later  said  the  same  in  regard  regard  to  His 
to  Lazarus  (Jn.  xi.  11);  but  He  did  not  resurrection, 
thereby  intimate  that  death,  in  general,  is  a  sleep.  He 
did  not  say  it  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  or,  indeed, 
of  any  departed  ones  save  these  two  whom  He  was  about 
to  raise  again  to  life.  It  was  in  view  of  His  miracu- 
lous awakening  of  these  persons  that  He  spoke  of 
their  condition  as  a  sleep.  But  on  the  general  fact  of 
physical  death  Jesus  seems  to  have  had  nothing  to 
say.  He  greatly  changed  the  thought  of  death  for 
His  disciples,  but  He  did  it  by  glorifying  what  lies 
beyond   and   by   making  them    sure   of   possessing   it. 


286  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

We  cannot  infer  from  His  reticence  regarding  death 
that  He  thought  His  parousia  near,  and  that  the 
dominion  of  death  was  accordingly  soon  to  cease ; 1  but 
it  is  to  be  regarded  rather  as  indicating  that,  in  His 
thought,  the  death  of  the  body  is  a  relatively  unimpor- 
tant incident  in  the  career  of  the  spirit. 

The  thought  of  resurrection  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
unlike  the  thought  of  death,  calls  for  special  considera- 
tion. We  cannot  doubt  that  Jesus,  in  common  with  the 
great  majority  of  the  Jews  of  His  time,  had  believed 
in  His  own  personal  immortality  long  before  He  be- 
came conscious  of  Messiahship.  In  His  case  there  was 
one  peculiar  and  irresistible  argument  for  immortality, 
and  that  was  His  consciousness  of  perfect  moral  union 
with  God.  The  consciousness  of  pleasing  God  per- 
fectly, and  the  consequent  sense  of  God's  love  for  Him, 
must  have  raised  the  fond  hope  of  the  Old  Testament 
saints  to  an  absolute  certainty  in  His  case,  and  must 
have  made  the  thought  of  eternal  life  in  God  as  familiar 
and  clear  as  the  thought  of  His  own  existence. 

But  however  this  may  have  been,  the  references 
which  Jesus  makes  to  His  resurrection  are  plainly 
associated  with  the  thought  of  His  Messiahship.  This 
appears,  for  example,  in  the  first  obscure  allusion  to 
His  resurrection  which  is  involved  in  the  sign  of  Jonah 
(Mt.  xii.  38-40;  Lk.  xi.  29-30).     It  was  in  the  light  of 

1  Comp.  Weudt,  Die  Lehre  /esu,  ii.  606, 


CONSUMMATION  OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM         287 

His  Messianic  consciousness  that  the  story  of  Jonah  ac- 
quired the  significance  which  He  saw  in  it.  To  Him 
it  foreshadowed  His  death  and  resurrection ;  but  there 
is  no  indication  that  any  one  else  had  attached  such 
a  significance  to  it.  Then,  as  His  three  formal  an- 
nouncements of  death  were  based  on  His  Messianic 
reading  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  the  thought  of  resur- 
rection, which  is  associated  with  each  of  these  an- 
nouncements, is  to  be  regarded  as  a  conviction  which 
was  inseparable  from  His  consciousness  of  Messiah- 
ship.  According  to  Luke,  Jesus  found  His  resurrection 
written  in  the  Old  Testament  (Lk.  xxiv.  46);  and  if 
so,  we  must  either  suppose  that  He  found  it  in  such 
obscure  forms  as  the  experience  of  Jonah,  or  that  He 
saw  it  implied  in  the  prophetic  pictures  of  the  everlast- 
ing glory  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  for  it  is  nowhere 
explicitly  taught.  But  the  hints  of  His  resurrection 
which  He  found  in  the  Old  Testament  became  a  cer- 
tainty for  Jesus  in  the  consciousness  of  His  own  Mes- 
siahship.  He  knew  that  His  defeat  by  the  power  of 
evil  could  not  be  permanent  because  He  knew  that  He 
was  the  Messiah.  He  was  perfectly  sure  that  He 
should  speedily  rise  from  the  dead,  and  thereby  estab- 
lish His  Messianic  work  among  men,  because  He  was 
sure  that  He  had  been  anointed  by  God  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world. 

According  to    Mark  the   resurrection    of   Jesus  was 


288  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

to  be  after  three  days  (Mk.  viii.  31;  ix.  31;  x.  34); 
according  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  it  was  to  be  on  the 
third  day,  though  Matthew  in  the  passage  regarding 
Jonah  represents  Jesus  as  saying  that  the  Son  of  man 
must  be  in  the  heart  of  the  earth  three  days  and  three 
nights  (Mt.  xvi.  21  ;  Lk.  ix.  22  ;  Mt.  xii.  40).  It  is  most 
probable  that  the  expression  three  days  was  used  to 
designate  a  short  time  (comp.  Hos.  vi.  2),  and  that  the 
language  of  Matthew  and  Luke  is  a  modification  of 
the  popular  expression  made  natural  by  the  historical 
fact  that  Jesus  actually  rose  on  the  third  day,  after 
He  had  been  in  the  tomb  two  nights  and  a  little  more 
than  one  day.  But  however  this  may  be,  it  is  plain 
that  Jesus  was  confident  of  a  speedy  resurrection. 

Further,  it  appears  that  Jesus  thought  of  His  resur- 
rection as  a  visible  phenomenon,  a  bodily  return  from 
the  grave.  The  analogy  of  Jonah's  experience  sug- 
gests this  thought,  whether  the  book  of  Jonah  be 
regarded  as  historical  or  not,  for  Jonah  returned  in 
the  body  from  his  burial  in  the  sea.  Moreover,  a 
visible,  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus  seems  to  be  im- 
plied in  the  promise  of  the  last  evening,  that  Jesus, 
after  He  had  risen  from  the  dead,  would  go  before 
His  disciples  into  Galilee  (Mk.  xiv.  28;  Mt.  xxvi.  32), 
for  this  language  seems  to  involve  the  thought  that 
He  would  meet  the  disciples  there,  and  that  they 
should  see  Him  (Mk.  xvi.  7;  Mt.  xxviii.   16). 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE  MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     289 

The  Messianic  significance  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  is  clearly  indicated  by  Him.  It  was  to  be  a 
sign  to  that  generation,  that  is,  a  sign  of  His  Messiah- 
ship  (Mt.  xii.  39-40 ;  Mk.  xiv.  27-28  ;  Lk.  xxiv.  46). 
That  was  what  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  were  seek- 
ing on  the  occasion  when  Jesus  spoke  of  the  sign  of 
Jonah.  That  was  what  they  sought  from  Him,  but 
did  not  believe  that  He  could  give,  and  what  they 
certainly  would  not  have  appreciated  had  it  been 
given.  Jesus  replied  to  their  sceptical  demand  with 
an  intimation  that  His  resurrection  would  be  the 
sign  which  they  sought.  And  thus,  as  far  as  its 
significance  was  concerned,  He  put  it  in  the  same 
class  with  His  words  and  works.  It  is  well  known 
that  from  the  day  of  the  resurrection  onward  the 
event  actually  had  this  significance  both  for  the  few 
who  had  already  believed  in  Jesus,  and  for  many 
who  had  not  yet  believed.  It  was  the  crowning 
proof  of  His  Messiahship,  or  at  least  the  proof  which 
was  most  easily  taken  hold  of  by  men  in  the  apostolic 
age. 

Again,  Jesus  gave  substantially  the  same  intimation 
regarding  the  meaning  of  His  resurrection  when,  on 
the  night  of  His  betrayal,  He  told  His  disciples  that 
they  all  would  be  offended  in  Him,  that  is,  would 
deny  and  forsake  Him  ;  and  then  added  that  after 
He  was  risen  He  would  go  before   them   into  Galilee 


290  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

(Mk.  xiv.  27-28).  Here  it  is  His  resurrection  that 
is  to  rally  them  and  bring  them  back  to  Him ;  and 
this  prophetic  word  of  Jesus  had  a  perfect  fulfilment 
within  a  short  time  after  the  resurrection.  Thus, 
according  to  the  Synoptists,  Jesus  saw  in  His  resur- 
rection a  visible  demonstration  of  His  Messiahship. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  gave 

an    ocular    proof    of    the    personal    immortality    of.   a 

good  man,  for  the  disciples  were  convinced 

bearing  of      that   the   Jesus  whom  they  had  seen  expire 

Jesus' 

resurrection  on  the  cross  was  with  them  again  on  the 
resurrection  third  day,  not  in  a  wholly  intelligible  man- 
of  other  men.  ne^  but  really  wfth  them,  person  with  per- 
son. This,  however,  is  not  the  significance  of  the 
event  in  relation  to  the  general  subject  of  resurrec- 
tion. On  this  subject,  the  significance  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  is  wholly  negative.  It  was  bodily, 
but  this  fact  does  not  prophesy  a  bodily  resurrection 
for  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  or  for  any  one  ;  it  rather 
precludes  such  a  resurrection,  because  the  bodily 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  like  His  visible  manifestation 
to  His  disciples  after  the  resurrection,  was  Messianic, 
and  so  peculiar  to  Him.  The  miraculous  occurrence 
which  was  necessary  in  His  case,  as  a  final  proof  of 
His  Messiahship,  can  never  be  necessary  in  the  case 
of  another  man,  for  there  cannot  be  another  Messiah. 
It  is  as  impossible  to  argue  from  the  bodily  character 


CONSUMMATION  OF  THE  MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     29 1 

of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  to  a  bodily  resurrection 
for  His  disciples  as  it  would  be  to  say  that  because 
Jesus  could  raise  the  dead,  therefore  His  disciples 
also  can  raise  the  dead. 

Since,  then,  Jesus  regarded  the  material  and  bodily 
character  of  His  resurrection  as  designed  to  accomplish 
a  Messianic  purpose,  we  may  safely  say  that  He  did 
not  think  of  the  resurrection  of  others  as  having  this 
character. 

This  inference  is  confirmed  by  the  sole  passage  in 
which  Jesus  gives  anything  like  formal  teaching  in 
regard  to  resurrection,  namely,  the  passage  which  re- 
ports His  reply  to  the  question  of  the  Sadducees  (Mk. 
xii.  18-27;  Mt.  xxii.  23-33;  Lk.  xx.  27-38).1  For 
here  He  proves  the  fact  of  resurrection  by  citing  a 
passage  which  implies  that  certain  persons  were  already 
risen.  The  language  of  God  to  Moses  involves  the 
thought  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  who  had 
died  long  before,  were  living,  and  therefore  were  risen 
from  the  dead.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  Jesus 
thought  of  their  graves  as  empty,  or  supposed  that 
their  mortal  dust  had  been  in  anywise  affected  by 
their  resurrection.  And  the  Jewish  teachers  had  no 
such  thought  as  this.  They  had  long  believed,  indeed, 
in  a    bodily  resurrection,2   but  they  thought    that  this 

1  Lk.  xiv.  14  is  merely  incidental. 

2  See  Enoch,  li.  I;   xcii.  3;  lxii.  15;   ciii.  4;  civ.  2;   c.  5;  2  Mace.  vii. 9, 


292  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

resurrection  was  still  in  the  future,  and  was  to  take 
place  at  the  beginning  of  the  Messianic  age,  or  dur- 
ing its  progress.1  This  resurrection  for  which  the 
Jews  were  looking  was  to  be  a  resurrection  into  an 
earthly  life,  and  of  this  doctrine  there  is  no  trace  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  thought  of  the  patriarchs 
as  being  in  heaven,  and  their  resurrection  was  ac- 
cordingly past  (Lk.  xvi.  22;  Mk.  xii.  27).  Therefore 
we  say  that  this  passage  supports  the  inference  from 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  namely,  that  He  did  not 
think  of  the  resurrection  of  men  as  being  material 
and  bodily  in  character.  If  this  be  true,  then  we 
should  expect  to  find  that  Jesus  refers  to  resurrection 
as  belonging  to  the  moment  of  death ;  and  this  is 
indeed  the  case.  In  His  reply  to  the  Sadducees  He 
speaks  of  the  patriarchs  as  though  they  were  living 
with  God  in  the  days  of  Moses ;  and  if  that  was  the 
case,  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  this  had  not 
been  true  of  them  every  hour  since  their  death.  In 
the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  Jesus  rep- 
resents the  spirit  of  Lazarus  as  passing  into  heaven 
in  the  moment  of  death,  for  the  bosom  of  Abraham 
is  a  synonym  of  heaven  (Lk.  xvi.  22,  25-26).  And 
finally,   He  assured    the  penitent  robber,  who  was  ex- 

14,  23,  36;    xii.  43-44;   Ps.  of  Solomon   iii.  16;   xiv.  2;    2  Esdras  vii.  32; 
Cheyne,  Jewish  Religious  Life  after  the  Exile,  p.  244. 
1  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmuds,  pp.  347-354. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     293 

piring  on  a  cross  by  the  side  of  His  own,  that  he 
should  be  in  Paradise  with  Him  that  day  ;  and  Para- 
dise is  heaven,  and  to  be  in  heaven  is  certainly  to  be 
risen  from  the  dead  (Lk.  xxiii.  42-43).    ' 

The  reply  which  Jesus  made  to  the  Sadducees  bears 
also  upon  the  point  whether  He  believed  in  a  general 
resurrection.  His  language  certainly  is  not  limited. 
He  says  when  men  rise  from  the  dead  (Mk.  xii.  25), 
concerning  the  dead,  that  they  are  raised  (Mk.  xii. 
26),  concerning  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  (Mt.  xxii. 
31).  This  is  general,  just  as  we  might  expect,  for 
what  the  Sadducees  denied  was  not  the  resurrection 
of  a  particular  class  of  men,  as  the  unrighteous,  but  the 
resurrection  of  any  one.  And  inasmuch  as  the  Sad- 
ducees were  silenced  by  the  argument  of  Jesus  (Mt. 
xxii.  34),  we  may  infer  that  they  regarded  it  as  an 
argument  for  the  resurrection  of   man  as  such. 

It   is    true    of    the    fourth    Gospel,    as    it    is   of  the 
Synoptists,  that    the  thought    of    Jesus    regarding   the 
future  after  His  death  is  preeminently  Mes- 
sianic.    It  all    has  a  direct    connection  with  thought  of 

resurrection 

the  realization  of  the  purpose  of  the  Messiah,   in  the  fourth 
The  teaching  is  personal,  and  He  is  its  centre. 

There  is  no  word  by  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
in  regard  to  His  own  bodily  resurrection,  such  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  Synoptists ;  but  He  refers  to  the 
resurrection  of  others,  and  claims  a  vital  relation  to  it. 


294  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

The  central  saying  is  that  which  was  spoken  just 
before  the  raising  of  Lazarus.  Martha  had  expressed 
the  common  belief  of  the  Jews,  that  her  brother 
would  rise  in*  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day  (Jn.  xi. 
24).  Jesus  replied  in  substance  that  the  present 
spiritual  resurrection  is  the  all-important  fact;  that 
He  gives  this  resurrection  to  all  who  receive  Him ; 
and  that  this  spiritual  resurrection  is  unto  a  life 
which  is  not  affected  by  physical  death  (Jn.  xi. 
25-26).  He  makes  no  reference  to  a  resurrection  of 
the  body,  or  to  a  future  resurrection.  He  speaks  as 
though  the  spiritual  resurrection  in  the  present  were 
the  only  thing  about  which  one  need  be  concerned. 
Life  once  begun,  true  life,  continues  without  cessa- 
tion. Physical  death  does  not  touch  it.  The  body 
collapses  and  falls,  but  the  life  goes  on.  Now  this 
continuance  of  the  spiritual  life,  when  considered  by 
the  side  of  the  physical  collapse,  is  equivalent  to  res- 
urrection, for  it  of  course  implies  that  the  spirit  es- 
capes from  the  crumbling  body. 

There  are  several  references  in  John  to  the  last 
day,  but  they  contain  no  specific  thought  in  regard 
to  resurrection  (Jn.  vi.  39,  40,  44,  54;  xii.  48).  In 
each  of  the  four  cases  where  Jesus  declares  that  He 
will  raise  up  His  disciples  in  the  last  day,  the  promi- 
nent thought  is  not  one  of  time,  but  of  spiritual 
relationship.     Jesus    will    perfectly  keep    him  who    be- 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     295 

lieves ;  He  will  lose  nothing.  No  one  shall  pluck 
the  disciple  out  of  the  hand  of  Jesus,  now  or  in  the 
hour  of  death  and  judgment.  Jesus  will  see  His  dis- 
ciple safely  through  to  the  end.  It  is  this  thought 
of  perfect  keeping  which  is  central  in  the  use  which 
Jesus  makes  of  the  Jewish  expression,  "  Raising  up 
at  the  last  day."  This  view  is  in  harmony  with  the 
spiritual  character  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  in  har- 
mony also  with  the  Synoptic  teaching  of  Jesus  regard- 
ing resurrection.  In  the  other  passage  where  the 
last  day  is  referred  to  (Jn.  xii.  48),  the  prominent 
thought  is  that  of  judgment  by  the  word  of  Christ, 
and  the  meaning  is  wholly  unaffected  by  the  location 
of  this  last  day,  whether  it  be  referred  to  the  end  of 
life  or  the  end  of  the  present    dispensation. 

There  is  one  word  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
that  might  at  first  be  thought  to  indorse  the  Jewish 
teaching  of  a  resurrection  at  the  end  of  the  present 
age.  It  occurs  in  a  passage  which  deals  with  the 
Messianic  prerogatives  of  Jesus,  His  authority  to 
quicken  those  who  are  spiritually  dead  (Jn.  v.  21, 
25-26),  and  to  judge  men  (Jn.  v.  22,  23,  27).  It  is  in 
subordination  to  this  thought  of  Messianic  authority 
that  Jesus  refers  to  a  future  resurrection  of  the  bad 
and  the  good  (Jn.  v.  28-29).  Hence  the  resurrection 
is  not  treated  here  for  its  own  sake,  but  incidentally. 
Therefore  this  passage  cannot  be   regarded   as   direct 


296  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

teaching  on  the  subject  of  the  resurrection ;  and  in 
view  of  what  Jesus  said  to  Martha  and  His  teaching 
in  the  earlier  Gospels,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  even 
implying  a  belief  of  Jesus  that  resurrection  is  long 
subsequent  to  death. 

As  Jesus  looked  out  upon  the  future  and  con- 
templated the  realization  of  His  Messianic  purpose 
ii.  The  after    His    death,    one    fact    on    which    His 

mission  and  n  ,  .... 

work  of  the  thought  rested  was  the  activity  of  the 
0Pinthe  Spirit,  and  this  subject  properly  claims  at- 
Synoptists.  tention  immediately  after  the  topic  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus. 

In  the  Synoptic  teaching  of  Jesus  there  is  little 
reference  of  any  sort  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  can 
hardly  say  that  we  have  even  the  elements  of  a 
doctrine.  The  Spirit  is  referred  to  on  but  two  or 
three  occasions,  and  then  very  briefly.  These  pas- 
sages, however,  are  perhaps  of  more  importance  than 
might  appear  on  first  thought,  for  they  do  suggest 
a  vital  service  of  the  Spirit,  and  they  help  to  explain 
two  statements  made  by  the  evangelists  in  regard  to 
Jesus,  which  seem  to  involve  a  contradiction.  The 
only  Synoptic  word  in  regard  to  the  sending  of  the 
Spirit  is  found  in  Luke,  and  was  spoken  by  Jesus 
after  His  resurrection  (Lk.  xxiv.  49).  The  disciples 
were  gathered  in  Jerusalem,  and  Jesus  said  to  them, 
"I  send  forth  the  promise    of   my  Father    upon   you, 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     297 

but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  until  ye  be  endued  with 
power  from  on  high."  These  words  are  spoken  by 
Jesus  from  the  standpoint  of  His  heavenly  glory. 
He  will  send  the  promise  upon  the  disciples.  This, 
of  course,  implies  that  He  is  separated  from  them  at 
the  time  when  He  sends  the  Spirit,  and  as  the 
promise  is  to  be  sent  from  on  high,  it  is  further  im- 
plied that  He  will  be  on  high  when  the  Spirit  is 
sent.  There  is  no  suggestion  here  of  a  personal 
return  of  Jesus  from  on  high,  that  He  may  be  with 
the  disciples  to  the  end  of  the  age,  as  is  said  in 
Matthew  (xxviii.  20).  Jesus  speaks  of  sending  upon 
the  disciples  only  the  promise  of  the  Father.  He 
does  not  say  Spirit.  Yet  this  promise,  in  the  light 
of  its  fulfilment  at  Pentecost,  must  be. referred  to  the 
Old  Testament  promises  of  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah 
(e.g.  Joel  ii.  28;  Ez.  xxxvi.  27;  xxxix.  29).  Jesus 
does  not  here  speak  of  the  sending  of  the  Spirit  as 
something  original  with  Himself,  but  only  as  the  ful- 
filment through  Him  of  the  promise  of  the  Father. 

Jesus  had  already  spoken  of  the  Spirit  when  fore- 
telling the  fate  of  His  disciples,  apparently  on  two 
occasions  (Mt.  x.  20;  Lk.  xii.  12;  Mk.  xiii.  11;  Lk. 
xxi.  15).  It  is  noticeable  that  on  the  second  occasion, 
when  Mark  says  that  the  Holy  Spirit  will  speak  in 
the  disciples  in  their  hour  of  peril,  Luke  represents 
Jesus  as  saying,  "/will  give  you  a  mouth  and  wisdom." 


298  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

In  view  of  Lk.  xxiv.  49,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
he  thought  of  this  promise  as  accomplished  through 
the  Spirit. 

The  function  of  the  Spirit,  according  to  these  two 
earlier  passages,  is  to  help  the  disciples  bear  witness 
for  Jesus.  He  will  speak  in  them,  or  will  teach  them, 
in  the  time  of  their  need ;  and  therefore  they  are  not 
to  be  anxious.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  these  pas- 
sages that  Jesus  thought  of  the  Spirit  as  aiding  His 
disciples  only  when  they  should  be  brought  before 
governors  and  kings.  The  Spirit  is  represented  as 
speaking  in  them  or  through  them,  not,  of  course,  in 
an  outward  and  mechanical  way,  apart  from  their  will 
and  reason,  but  as  an  inspiring  force  at  the  centre  of 
their  being.  Luke  plainly  thinks  of  a  permanent  gift 
when  he  represents  Jesus  as  saying,  "  I  will  give  you  a 
mouth  and  zvisdom,  which  no  one  shall  be  able  to  with- 
stand." A  man  who  has  heavenly  wisdom  has  it  every 
day  and  for  all  days.     It  is  a  quality  of  the  man  himself. 

In  view  now  of  this  explicit  teaching  in  regard  to  the 
sending  of  the  Spirit  by  the  exalted  Lord,  the  word 
of  Mt.  xxviii.  20,  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  age,"  can  hardly  be  taken  as  a 
promise  of  the  strictly  personal  presence  of  Jesus. 
It  must  rather  be  referred  to  the  presence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  since  the  Spirit  is  sent  by  Jesus  (Lk.  xxiv. 
49),  He  certainly  does  the  will  of  Jesus,  and  therefore 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     299 

Jesus  can  say  to  His  disciples,  "/  am  with  you."1 
This  is  precisely  parallel  to  the  conception  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  that  because  Jesus  perfectly  represents 
the  Father,  they  who  see  and  hear  Jesus  see  and  hear 
the  Father;  and  it  is  also  parallel  to  the  Synoptic 
conception  that  they  who  receive  Jesus  receive  the 
Father  {e.g.   Mk.  ix.   37). 

There  is  another  passage  which  must  be  considered 
in  this  connection.  In  Mt.  xviii.  20  Jesus  says,  "  If 
two  of  you  shall  agree  upon  earth  regarding  anything 
which  they  may  ask,  it  shall  be  done  for  them  of  my 
Father  who  is  in  heaven  ;  for  where  two  or  three  are 
gathered  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of 
them."  Now  the  presence  of  Jesus  is  here  given  as 
the  reason  why  the  Father  grants  the  petitions  of  the 
disciples,  and,  accordingly,  it  cannot  be  understood  as 
a  real  presence  of  Jesus,  inasmuch  as  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  elsewhere  represents  God  as  hearing  and  answer- 
ing all  who  come  to  Him  as  children,  in  faith  and  love. 
Wendt2  understands  this  word  of  Mt.  xviii.  20  in  anal- 
ogy with  those  passages  where  Jesus  declares  that  He 
counts  certain  acts  done  to  others  in  His  name  as  done 
to  Him.  Thus,  "  He  who  receives  one  of  such  little 
children  in  my  name  receives  me  "  (Mk.  ix.  37);  and, 
"  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  these,  my  brethren, 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  546-548. 

2  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  548. 


300  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

even  these  least,  ye  did  it  unto  me  "  (Mt.  xxv.  40).  Now 
Jesus  is  not  thought  of  as  being  really  present  in  the 
man  who  receives  Christian  service  from  His  disciples ; 
but  He  reckons  the  service  of  the  same  value  as  though 
it  had  been  done  to  Him  in  person.  So  in  the  passage 
under  consideration,  where  Jesus  says  that  the  Father 
will  surely  hear  the  smallest  circle  gathered  in  His 
name,  because  He,  Jesus,  is  with  them,  He  affirms 
only  that  the  Father  will  regard  the  prayer  of  these 
two  or  three  disciples  as  though  it  were  the  prayer 
of  Jesus. 

Now  this  thought  of  Wendt  is  doubtless  in  harmony 
with  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  but  it  seems  questionable 
whether  it  is  just  the  thought  of  the  present  verse. 
This  seems  to  go  further,  and  to  suggest  that  the 
Father's  answer  is  certain  because  of  some  relation- 
ship between  the  disciples  and  Jesus.  Now  to  be 
gathered  in  the  name  of  Jesus  implies  faith  in  Him, 
and  something  of  His  spirit.  It  implies  a  certain 
christlikeness  of  character ;  for,  in  Scripture  language, 
name  expresses  character  {e.g.  Jn.  xvii.  26;  Mt.  i.  21  ; 
vi.  9).1  But  where  there  is  likeness  to  Christ,  there 
Christ  is,  not  personally  of  course,  but  virtually.  As 
Jesus  said,  "  Pie  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the 
Father,"   so   of   a   perfect   Christian  it  might   be   said, 

1  See  Cremer,  Biblisch-Theologisches  VVorterbuch,  dritte  Auflage,  pp. 
590-593. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     301 

"He  that  hath  seen  his  character  hath  seen  the  char- 
acter of  Christ."  Therefore  we  may  think  that  it  is 
this  fact  of  christ likeness  which  justifies  the  assurance 
that  God  will  grant  the  request  of  the  disciples. 

In  conclusion  regarding  the  Synoptic  teaching  on 
the  Spirit,  it  may  be  said  that  Luke  and  Matthew 
agree  in  the  suggestion  that  the  realization  of  the 
Messianic  purpose  by  Jesus  from  His  heavenly  glory 
will  be  powerful  and  victorious  (Lk.  xxiv.  49;  Mt. 
xxviii.  18).  He  has  all  the  authority  that  is  requisite 
for  the  accomplishment  of  His  desire,  and  a  perfect 
agent  in  the  Spirit,  through  whom  that  authority  can 
be  exercised. 

On  passing  from  the  Synoptists  to  the  fourth  Gospel 
and  to  its  account  of  the  last  days  of  Jesus'  life,  we 
find  a  relatively  elaborate  and  fixed  doctrine  regarding 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

The    only   early    reference    in    John   to    the    Spirit, 
namely,  in  the  conversation  with    Nicodemus   (Jn.    iii. 
5-8),    is    such   as   might    be    made    on    the  b%  In  john 
basis  of   the  Old  Testament   revelation.     It  I-  The    r 

coming  of 

implies  nothing  with  regard  to  the  Spirit's  the  Spirit, 
relation  to  Jesus.  But  the  character  and  function 
of  the  Spirit,  according  to  the  later  words  of  Jesus, 
are  exclusively  Messianic.  He  is  regarded  as  the 
successor  of  Jesus  in  the  work  of  realizing  the  Mes- 
sianic purpose. 


302  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

The  coming  of  the  Spirit  is  conditioned  in  a  two- 
fold manner.  As  regards  the  disciples,  it  is  necessary 
that  they  should  be  united  to  Christ  in  order  that  the 
Spirit  may  come  to  them.  "  If  ye  love  me,"  Jesus 
says,  "ye  will  keep  my  commandments,  and  I  will 
pray  the  Father,  and  he  will  give  you  another  Helper  " 
(Jn.  xiv.  15,  16).  His  asking  the  Father  is  here  con- 
ditioned upon  the  keeping  of  His  commandments  by 
the  disciples,  but  this  is  in  turn  only  an  evidence  that 
they  truly  love  Him,  or  are  truly  united  to  Him.  This 
condition  is  elsewhere  implied,  as  when  Jesus  says 
that  His  disciples  know  the  Spirit  because  He  abides 
with  them,  and  is  in  them  (Jn.  xiv.  17).  That  is  to 
say,  they  already  know  the  Spirit  because  they  know 
Jesus.  The  world,  on  the  other  hand,  beholds  not  the 
Spirit,  that  is,  beholds  Him  not  in  Jesus,  or,  in  other 
words,  sees  not  the  real  character  of  Jesus.  For  this 
reason  it  cannot  receive  the  Spirit.  There  has  been 
no  preparation  made  for  Him.  He  has  no  point  of 
contact  with  the  world,  but  He  has  a  point  of  contact 
with  the  disciples,  because  they  are  united  to  Jesus. 
Thus  the  entire  ministry  of  the  Spirit  which  is  con- 
templated in  these  words  of  Jesus,  presupposes  the 
acceptance  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 

The  coming  of  the  Spirit  is  also  conditioned  upon 
the  prayer  of  Jesus,  and  upon  His  departure  to  the 
Father.     First,  the  necessity  of  His  prayer  is  implied 


CONSUMMATION  OF  THE  MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     303 

when  He  says,  "  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
give  you  another  Helper"  (Jn.  xiv.  16).  This  thought 
of  the  necessity  of  Christ's  prayer  is  in  keeping  with 
the  general  teaching,  that  He  is  the  sole  channel  through 
which  the  Father's  love  and  truth  come  to  the  disci- 
ples. When  Jesus  says  that  He  will  send  the  Helper, 
He  does  not  represent  Himself  as  the  ultimate  source 
of  the  Spirit,  but  rather  as  the  channel  through  which 
the  Father  bestows  this  gift  upon  the  disciples  (Jn. 
xv.  26 ;  xvi.  7).  Whenever  the  Spirit  goes  forth,  He 
proceeds  from  the  Father  (Jn.  xv.  26);  but  just  as  the 
name,  or  character,  of  the  Father  is  manifested  through 
Jesus  the  Messiah,  so  the  Spirit  comes  through  His 
agency. 

Then,  further,  the  Spirit's  coming  is  conditioned 
upon  the  departure  of  Jesus  to  the  Father.  "  It  is 
expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away,  for  if  I  go  not  away 
the  Helper  will  not  come  unto  you  ;  but  if  I  go  away, 
I  will  send  him  unto  you  "  (Jn.  xvi.  7).  The  hearers 
were  left  to  explain  for  themselves  why  the  presence  of 
the  Helper  required  the  absence  of  Jesus.  The  Lord 
simply  states  the  fact.  The  explanation,  however,  is 
not  far  to  seek.  In  another  connection,  when  mani- 
festly referring  to  the  Spirit's  coming  to  the  disciples, 
Jesus  says  that  He  will  come  to  them  and  will  mani- 
fest Himself  to  them  (Jn.  xiv.  18,  21).  Now  it  is 
obvious   that   before    He    could  come  to  them    in    the 


304  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Spirit,  He  must  depart  from  them  in  His  own 
person. 

Jesus  says,  moreover,  that  this  departure  will  be 
profitable  for  the  disciples.  The  Spirit  will  be  to  them 
more  than  He  could  be.  He  does  not  explain  this 
statement,  but  we  doubtless  have  its  explanation  in 
the  fact  that  the  Helper  is  spirit  (Jn.  xiv.  17),  and  so 
is  free  from  the  limitations  which  rested  on  Jesus. 
The  Successor  of  Jesus  could  be  with  each  disciple 
of  the  widely  scattered  band;  and  their  fellowship 
with  Him,  being  wholly  spiritual,  would  be  higher 
and  more  complete  than  any  fellowship  through  the 
senses  could  be. 

The  character  of  the  Successor  of  Jesus  is  com- 
prehensively defined  when  Jesus  calls  Him  another 
Helper  (Jn.  xiv.  16).  This  shows  that  the 
character  of    mission  of  the  Spirit  is  essentially  the  same 

the  Spirit. 

as  that  of  Jesus ;  and  this  fact  seems  to 
justify  the  inference  that  His  character  is  essentially 
the  same.  If  He  is  a  helper  like  Jesus,  one  who  can 
take  the  place  of  Jesus,  then  He  has  the  same  tender 
love  for  the  disciples  that  Jesus  had,  the  same  purpose, 
the  same  understanding  of  their  needs,  and  the  same 
divine  ability  to  help  them. 

Jesus  twice  calls  the  Helper  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
which  means  that  it  is  the  function  of  the  Spirit  to 
lead   the  disciples  into  all  truth  (Jn.  xvi.   13).     He   is 


CONSUMMATION  OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     305 

the  Spirit  of  truth  because  He  reveals  the  truth.  And 
here  is  suggested  the  intimate  relationship  between 
the  Spirit  and  Christ.  Jesus  said  of  Himself  that  He 
was  the  truth  (Jn.  xiv.  6),  and  now  He  says  that  the 
Spirit  reveals  the  truth.  This  really  implies  that  He 
is  of  the  same  character  as  Jesus,  just  as  Jesus  reveals 
the  Father,  because  He  is  of  the  same  character  as 
the  Father.1 

In  regard  to  the.  personality  of  the  Spirit,  it  is  plain 
that  this  is  everywhere  assumed  in  the  statements  of 
Jesus.  Thus  He  says  that  the  Spirit  teaches  (Jn. 
xiv.  26);  that  He  witnesses  of  Jesus  (Jn.  xv.  26);  that 
He  convicts  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment 
(Jn.  xvi.  8);  that  He  speaks  what  He  hears  (Jn. 
xvi.  13),  and  that  He  takes  of  the  things  of  Jesus  and 
declares  them  to  the  disciples  (Jn.  xvi.  14-15).  Now 
all  these  expressions  are  such  as  would  be  used  of  a 
person ;  and,  indeed,  most  of  them  are  actually  used 
in  regard  to  Jesus.  Not  only  do  these  expressions 
imply  personality,  but  so  in  like  manner  does  the 
relation  of  the  Spirit  to  Jesus.  He  is  represented  as 
taking  the  place  of  Jesus ;  and  it  seems  obvious  that 
an  impersonal  principle  could  not  take  the  place  of 
the  personal  Jesus. 

1  The  adjective  holy  is  associated  with  the  word  Spirit  but  once  in  the 
words  of  Jesus  (Jn.  xiv.  26),  and  then  helps  to  explain  the  word  Helper. 
The  term  Holy  Spirit  is  used  as  well  known,  and  no  stress  is  laid  on  the 
idea  of  the  adjective. 
X 


3<d6  the  revelation  OF  JESUS 

The  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  disciples  is  represented 
as  simply  a  continuation  of  the  work  of  Jesus.     The 

The  work  Spirit  is,  as  it  were,  the  other  self,  the  alter 
of  the  Spirit.  eg0^  0f  jesus,  and  He  carries  forward  what 
Jesus  began.  He  teaches  the  disciples,  and  this 
teaching  consists  in  an  unfolding  of  the  meaning  of 
all  that  Jesus  had  said  to  them  (Jn.  xiv.  26).  He 
takes  of  Christ's  things  and  shows  them  to  the  disci- 
ples, thus  glorifying  Christ  (Jn.  xvi.  14),  even  as 
Christ  in  the  same  way  glorifies  the  Father  (Jn. 
xvii.  4).  Like  Jesus,  the  Spirit  does  not  speak  of 
Himself,  but  speaks  what  He  hears,  that  is,  what 
He  hears  from  Jesus  (Jn.  xvi.  13).  It  is  sug- 
gested that  He  supplements  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
(Jn.  xvi.  12-13),  but  this  is  not  by  communicating 
doctrines  not  found  in  the  Master's  words.  The  name 
of  the  Father,  the  entire  name,  Jesus  had  Himself 
made  known  (Jn.  xvii.  6).  All  the  things  which 
He  had  heard  from  His  Father,  He  had  made  known 
to  His  disciples  (Jn.  xv.  15).  The  name  which  the 
Father  had  given  to  Him,  and  He  to  the  disciples, 
is  thought  of  as  a  complete  revelation,  for  Jesus  prays 
that  the  disciples  may  be  "  kept  "  in  it  unto  a  spiritual 
unity,  and  may  be  "  sanctified "  by  it  (Jn.  xvii. 
11,  17).  Moreover,  this  word  which  He  has  given 
to  His  disciples  is  one  through  which  others  are  led 
to  believe  in  Jesus  (Jn.  xvii.  20). 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S   KINGDOM     307 

The  same  great  thought,  that  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
was  not  to  be  supplemented  by  the  addition  of  any 
essential  truth,  is  also  found  in  the  last  references 
which  He  made  to  His  life-work.  He  said  that  He 
had  accomplished  what  the  Father  gave  Him  to  do, 
that  is,  the  Messianic  work,  and  that  He  was  glorified 
in  His  disciples  (Jn.  xvii.  4,  10).  He  was  glorified 
in  them  because  they  accepted  Him  as  the  Messiah 
(Jn.  xvii.  7-8).  They  are  united  to  Him  as  the 
branch  to  the  vine  (Jn.  xv.  4-5);  they  are  in  His 
love  as  He  is  in  the  Father's  love  (Jn.  xv.  9) ;  and 
He  has  commissioned  them  as  the  Father  commis- 
sioned Him  (Jn.  xvii.  18).  This  language  plainly 
implies  that,  in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  He  had  given 
to  His  disciples,  and  they  had  received,  all  the  essen- 
tials of  His  Gospel.  They  need  the  Father's  gracious 
help  through  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  live  this  Gospel 
(Jn.  xvii.  11,  15;  xiv.  26,  etc.);  but  there  is  no  further 
Gospel,  no  other  essential  truth  of  salvation,  for  them  to 
receive.  Thus,  according  to  John,  Jesus  plainly  teaches 
that  His  Gospel  needs  no  supplement ;  and,  as  for  the 
Synoptists,  they  contain  no  slightest  suggestion  that 
Christ's  revelation  of  the  Father  and  of  the  conditions 
of  salvation  is  incomplete  and  needs  to  be  supplemented. 

But  the  disciples  did  not  understand  all  that  Jesus 
had  said,  and  did  not  know  the  practical  inferences 
which  were  to  be  drawn  from    the    principles    of    His 


3<d8  the  revelation  OF  JESUS 

teaching.  Here,  then,  was  the  large  sphere  of  the 
Spirit's  activity.  He  was  to  unfold  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  and  help  the  disciples  to  secure  a  spiritual 
apprehension  of  it.  He  was  to  help  them  in  the 
application  of  Christ's  revelation  to  the  manifold  needs 
of  life.  Along  these  lines  He  could  say  many  things 
which  Jesus  had  not  said  (Jn.  xvi.  12);  and  in  par- 
ticular He  would  unfold  the  thought  of  Jesus  in  regard 
to  future  things  (Jn.  xvi.  13). 

Jesus  does  not  refer  to  any  action  of  the  Spirit  upon 
the  world  except  through  the  disciples,  or,  perhaps  we 
should  say,  any  action  of  the  Spirit  as  His  Spirit  and 
Successor.  A  certain  activity  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
involved  in  the  case  of  all  souls  who  are  disposed  to 
receive  Christ  when  they  meet  Him.  These  are  they 
of  whom  Jesus  says  that  they  are  of  the  truth,  or  of 
God  (Jn.  xviii.  37;  viii.  47;  hi.  21).  A  spiritual 
disposition  is  here  assumed  to  exist  before  there  has 
been  any  contact  with  Christ  or  His  disciples.  But 
these  passages  lie  apart  from  the  direct  teaching  of 
Jesus  regarding  the  Spirit  as  His  Successor.  This 
contemplates  the  activity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  world 
only  as  He  acts  through  the  disciples  in  whom  He 
dwells.  Jesus  says,  "  I  will  send  Him  unto  you,  and 
He  shall  convince  the  world"  (Jn.  xvi.  7-8).  This 
language  suggests  that  the  Spirit  will  convince  the 
world  through  the  disciples. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE    MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     309 

The  work  of  the  Spirit  is  broadly  characterized  by 
Jesus  as  a  convincing  or  persuading  in  regard  to  sin 
and  righteousness  and  judgment  (Jn.  xvi.  8-1 1).  This 
passage  does  not  contemplate  a  fruitless  activity  of  the 
Spirit  through  the  disciples,  but  a  successful  activity. 
The  words  are  spoken  for  the  encouragement  of  the 
disciples  in  view  of  the  departure  of  Jesus. 

This  characterization  of  the  Spirit,  as  convincing  men 
in  regard  to  sin,  righteousness,  and  judgment,  shows 
Him  engaged  in  an  activity  which  aims  at  -the  reali- 
zation of  the  purpose  of  the  Messiah.  For  each  of  these 
facts  is  considered  in  its  relation  to  Jesus  as  Messiah. 
Thus  men  are  convinced  of  sin,  that  is,  of  their  own  sin, 
because  they  believe  not  in  Jesus.  The  Holy  Spirit  is 
not  needed  to  convince  men  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as 
sin  in  their  lives  :  conscience  does  that.  Jesus,  while  on 
earth,  did  not  teach  men  that  they  were  sinners :  He 
simply  took  it  for  granted.  What  He  sought  to  bring 
home  to  men  was  the  necessity  of  accepting  Him  and 
His  revelation  {e.g.  Jn.  iii.  18).  Not  to  do  this  was  the 
fatal  sin.  Now  the  Spirit  continues  this  work  of  Jesus, 
and  seeks  through  the  disciples  to  convince  men  that 
the  sin  of  sins  is  not  believing  in  Jesus. 

The  Spirit  also  convinces  men  of  righteousness,  but 
this,  too,  with  reference  to  the  Messiah.  He  shall  con- 
vince the  world  in  respect  of  righteousness,  Jesus  says, 
because  He  goes  to  the  Father.     The  ascension  of  Jesus 


310  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

to  the  Father,  which  began  with  the  resurrection,  was 
indeed  the  seal  of  God's  approval,  and  confirmed  the 
claim  of  Jesus,  that  He  was  the  Messiah  (comp.  Jn.  viii. 
28).  Under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  according  to 
the  present  passage,  men  will  be  convinced  by  the  resur- 
rection and  ascension  of  Jesus  that  He  was  righteous, 
absolutely  so,  and  therefore  that  His  claim  to  be  the 
Messiah  sent  by  God  was  justified. 

Finally,  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  will  convince  the  world  in 
regard  to  judgment,  "  because  the  prince  of  this  world 
has  been  judged  "  (Jn.  xvi.  11).  To  be  convinced  that 
the  prince  of  the  world  has  been  judged  is  to  be  con- 
vinced that  the  world  itself  has  been  judged  —  the 
world  that  is  subject  to  him  and  pervaded  by  his  spirit. 
This  passage  does  not  say  how  the  prince  of  the  world 
has  been  judged,  but  we  learn  the  thought  of  Jesus  on 
this  point  from  an  earlier  word.  When  contemplating 
His  cross,  He  said,  "  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world, 
now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out "  (Jn.  xii. 
31).  This  passage  connects  the  judgment  of  Satan 
with  the  cross,  as  it  also  connects  the  glorification  of 
Jesus  with  the  cross.  It  judges  Satan  in  that  it  reveals 
his  character.  To  have  him  fully  unmasked  is  to  secure 
his  condemnation  by  all  right-thinking  intelligences. 
This,  however,  is  not  all.  Satan  is  not  only  judged; 
he  is  also  cast  out,  that  is,  out  of  the  world,  out  of  his 
throne  in  the  hearts  of  men  (Jn.  xii.  31).     Jesus,  when 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     31  I 

lifted  up,  draws  men  with  a  power  that  is  stronger  than 
the  bondage  of  Satan.  Thus  the  cross  judges  Satan 
and  also  defeats  him.  But  the  judgment  of  the  prince 
of  the  world  is  virtually  a  judgment  of  the  world  itself 
and  of  each  member  of  it  in  particular.  As  long  as  one 
is  a  part  of  Satan's  world,  one's  spirit  is  revealed  by  the 
cross  as  a  spirit  of  enmity  toward  God,  and  it  is  that 
which  is  judged.  Thus  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  Messiah, 
working  through  the  disciples,  convinces  the  world  that 
Jesus  is  its  judge,  because  He  has  already  judged  Satan, 
the  prince  of  the  world.  To  sum  up  the  thought  of 
this  passage,  we  may  say  that  the  Spirit's  mission  to  the 
world  through  the  disciples  is  to  present,  and  urge  upon 
men,  the  supreme  claims  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  It  is 
thus  purely  religious,  being  entirely  limited  to  the  sphere 
of  Christ's  teaching,  and  it  is  accomplished  only  through 
living  men. 

As  the  thought  of   Jesus  went  out  over  the  future, 
it   touched  upon    His  resurrection,  His  presence  with 
the  disciples  by   His  Spirit,   and  then  upon   m     , 
the  great,  and  for  us  complex,  subject  of  His  thought  of 

Jesus  in 

parousia,  or   "the  active  appearance  of  the  regard  to  His 

1  parousia. 

glorified  Messiah.    l  a.  survey  of 

The    Synoptic    Gospels     are    unequal    in  *  e    ala' 
their  respective  amounts  of   matter  regarding  the  par- 

1  See    Haupt,    Eschatologische    Aussagen    Jesu    in    den    Synoplischen 
Eva  ngeJie  n,  p .  115. 


312  THE   REVELATION  OF  JESUS 

ousia,  as  they  also  differ  somewhat  in  their  concep- 
tion of  what  that  is.  The  narratives  of  Mark  and 
Luke  have  each  four  direct  references  to  the  parousia, 
while  Matthew  has  nine  (Mk.  viii.  38  ;  xiii.  24,  33  ;  xiv. 
62  ;  Lk.  xxi.  25  ;  xvii.  26  ;  xviii.  8  ;  xii.  40;  Mt.  x.  23  ; 
xvi.  27;  xxiv.  3  ;  xxvi.  29,  64  ;  xxiv.  37,  42,  44;  xxv.  31- 
46).  The  first  reference  by  Jesus  to  His  parousia  was 
probably  made  at  Caesarea  Philippi  in  connection  with 
the  first  formal  announcement  of  His  death  and  resur- 
rection. In  the  parable  of  the  Tares,  and  again  in  that 
of  the  Drag-net,  Jesus  had  spoken  of  the  end  of  the  age, 
with  the  gathering  together  of  the  elect  by  the  angels 
whom  the  Son  of  man  should  send  forth ;  but  He  made 
no  direct  reference  to  the  parousia. 

Matthew  represents  Jesus  as  speaking  on  the  subject 
in  His  address  to  the  twelve  at  the  time  of  their  first 
mission,  which  was  long  before  the  days  spent  at 
Caesarea  Philippi  (Mt.  x.  23) ;  but  it  is  well  known 
that  the  first  evangelist  arranged  many  sayings  of 
Jesus  topically,  without  regard  to  the  time  when  they 
were  uttered.  So  he  has  brought  together,  in  this 
address,  sayings  of  the  Master  which  must  have  been 
spoken  much  later  than  the  first  mission  of  the  twelve, 
and  to  these  belongs  the  word  in  question,  "  When 
they  persecute  you  in  this  city,  flee  into  the  next ; 
for,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  not  have  gone 
through    the  cities   of    Israel  till   the   Son   of   man   be 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE    MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     313 

come."  But  there  is  no  likelihood  that  the  apostles, 
when  they  went  through  Galilee  healing  and  pro- 
claiming the  nearness  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  were 
persecuted.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  decidedly  probable 
that  they  were  welcomed  ;  and,  furthermore,  when  they 
made  their  report  to  Jesus,  they  said  nothing  of  per- 
secution (Mk.  vi.  30).  And  then,  it  is  unlikely  that 
Jesus  spoke  to  His  disciples  about  His  coming  before 
He  had  told  them  that  He  was  going  away  from 
them.  Therefore  we  are  justified  in  regarding  this 
word  of  Mt.  x.  23  as  a  word  which  was  spoken  late 
in  the  ministry  ;  and  hence  the  first  reference  to  the 
parousia  was  that  which  Jesus  made  at  Caesarea 
Philippi.  From  this  time  forward  we  do  not  find 
references  to  the  parousia  which  are  chronologically 
fixed  until  we  come  to  the  last  week.  Here  there 
are  at  least  two  clearly  marked  occasions  on  which 
Jesus  spoke  of  His  parousia :  one  the  occasion  of  the 
discourse  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  when  Jesus  spoke 
at  length  of  future  things ;  and  the  other  the  trial 
of  Jesus  by  the  sanhedrin.  According  to  Luke,  Jesus 
spoke  the  parable  of  the  Pounds  as  He  drew  near  to 
Jerusalem  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  week  (Lk.  xix. 
11-27).  This  parable  does  not  mention  the  parousia 
by  name,  but  certainly  refers  to  it.  Again,  it  seems 
probable  that  the  various  exhortations  to  watchfulness 
in  view  of    the  coming  of   the   Lord,  which    Matthew 


314  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

associates  with  the  discourse  on  Olivet,  may  have 
been  spoken  at  that  time.  In  any  case,  we  are  safe 
in  saying  that  most  of  the  references  to  the  parousia 
belong  to  the  last  week  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
Only  one  can  be  definitely  located  before  this  time, 
and  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  parousia  after  the 
resurrection. 

As  we  examine  the  data  regarding  the  parousia,  it 

appears   that   the    evangelists  spoke   of    two    separate 

events  under  the  name  of  a  coming  of  the 

b.  The  par- 
ousia not  a      Son  of  man,  or    a  parousia.       If  this   be  a 

sinsrle  event. 

fact,  it  is  plainly  of  fundamental  importance, 
and  therefore  the  evidence  must  be  somewhat  fully 
given. 

In  Mt.  x.  23  Jesus  says  to  His  disciples,  "  Ye  shall 
not  complete  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  man  be 
come."  In  Mt.  xxv.  31-46  He  speaks  of  a  coming  of 
the  Son  of  man  which  is  accompanied  by  a  universal 
and  final  judgment,  and  which  is  therefore  thought  of 
as  being  at  the  end  of  the  present  age.  Now  it  is 
plainly  impossible  to  identify  this  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man,  which  is  subsequent  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
to  all  nations,  with  that  other  coming  which  is  to  pre- 
cede the  evangelization  of  the  cities  of  Israel.  In 
these  two  statements  Jesus  cannot  have  referred  to 
one  and  the  same  event,  for  we  cannot  believe  that 
He  thought  it  would  take    as  long   to  evangelize  the 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     315 

cities  of  Israel  as  it  would  to  evangelize  all  the  rest  of 
the  world. 

But  again,  there  are  a  number  of  passages  which 
speak  of  a  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  which  will  be  sud- 
den and  wholly  imexpected.  Thus,  as  the  lightning 
cometh  from  the  east  and  is  seen  even  unto  the  west, 
so  shall  be  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  (Mt.  xxiv.  27). 
Both  Matthew  and  Luke  compare  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  man  with  the  coming  of  the  flood  in  the  days  of 
Noah,  which  took  the  generation  by  surprise  (Mt.  xxiv. 
37-39;  Lk.  xvii.  26-27),  and  Luke  compares  it  with  the 
rain  of  fire  and  brimstone  which  destroyed  Sodom  (Lk. 
xvii.  28-30).  It  will  be  as  sudden  as  were  those  events. 
To  this  class  of  passages  belong  the  exhortations  to 
watchfulness  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  time  of  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man  is  unknown.  Thus  Matthew 
says,  "  Watch,  for  ye  know  not  on  what  day  your  Lord 
cometh"  (Mt.  xxiv.  42);  and,  again,  "  Be  ye  also  ready, 
for  in  an  hour  when  ye  think  not  the  Son  of  man  com- 
eth "  (Mt.  xxiv.  44).  Mark  and  Luke  have  similar 
exhortations  (Mk.  xiii.  33  ;  Lk.  xii.  40),  and  the  parable 
of  the  Virgins    emphasizes    the   same    point  (Mt.  xxv. 

1-13). 

Now  over  against  this  class  of  passages  in  which  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man  is  represented  as  sudden  and 
unexpected,  we  have  passages  that  speak  of  a  coming 
which  is  to  be  heralded  by  well-known  signs,  and  which 


316  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

therefore  is  not  unexpected  and  sudden  (Mk.  xiii. 
24-26  ;  Mt.  xxiv.  3,  29-30).  Not  only  will  it  be  ushered 
in  by  these  signs,  but  it  is  thought  of  as  a  "  birth," 
which  will  be  preceded  by  travail-pains  (Mk.  xiii.  8 ; 
Mt.  xxiv.  8).  Thus  it  is  clearly  not  an  unexpected 
event.  This  difference  between  the  two  classes  of 
passages  goes  to  show  that  when  Jesus  spoke  of  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  He  did  not  always  have  the 
same  event  in  mind. 

Once  more,  Jesus  says  of  a  certain  coming  of  the  Son 
of  man  that  no  one  knows  the  day  or  the  hour.  The 
angels  do  not  know  it,  neither  the  Son :  it  is  known  to 
the  Father  only  (Mk.  xiii.  32).  But  there  is  also  a  com- 
ing of  which  Jesus  sets  the  date  within  narrow  limits. 
Thus,  it  will  be  before  the  cities  of  Israel  are  evangel- 
ized (Mt.  x.  23);  it  will  be  in  the  lifetime  of  some  of 
those  who  heard  Jesus  speak  of  His  death  and  resurrec- 
tion at  Caesarea  Philippi  (Mk.  ix.  1);  it  will  be  within 
the  lifetime  of  Caiaphas  and  the  members  of  the  san- 
hedrin  (Mk.  xiv.  62).  These  specifications  can  hardly 
belong  to  one  and  the  same  event.  In  one  case,  Jesus 
has  positive  chronological  knowledge,  which  is  quite 
definite  ;  in  the  other,  He  declares  explicitly  that  He 
knows  not  the  time  of  the  event.  Moreover,  this  argu- 
ment is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  Jesus  speaks  of 
certain  things  as  preceding  His  parousia  which  are  of 
such    a    character    that    He    can    hardly  have  thought 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     317 

of  them  as  lying  within  the  horizon  of  His  own  genera- 
tion. Thus  there  are  to  be  wars  and  rumors  of  wars. 
Nation  is  to  rise  against  nation,  and  kingdom  against 
kingdom.  There  are  to  be  earthquakes  and  famines, 
and  all  these  calamities  are  only  the  beginning  of 
travail  (Mk.  xiii.  7-8). 

Again,  the  Gospel  is  to  be  preached  to  all  the  na- 
tions before  the  parousia,  and  it  seems  extremely 
doubtful  whether  Jesus  thought  that  this  was  possible 
within  a  single  generation.  For  He  thought  not 
simply  of  a  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  to  all  crea- 
tures, but  also  of  a  process  of  genuine  leavening 
which  was  to  go  on  until  the  whole  lump  was 
leavened  (Mt.  xiii.  33).1  His  own  experience  with 
the  Gospel  was  that  men  were  slow  to  accept  it.  He 
foresaw  that  His  disciples  were  to  meet  bitter  opposi- 
tion, and  that  they  would  have  to  struggle  in  order  to 
achieve  any  spiritual  results.  Such  being  the  case, 
it  does  not  seem  probable  that  Jesus  expected  the 
world  to  be  leavened  before  that  generation  should 
pass ;  and  if  not,  then  the  parousia  of  which  He 
spoke  was  not  to  be  in  that  generation.  These  state- 
ments, therefore,  imply  that  two  different  events  are 
meant,  in  different  connections,  by  the  term  "  parousia." 

There  remains   yet  another  consideration  which  af- 

1  Comp.  on  the  thought  of  the  remoteness  of  the  parousia,  Bruce,  The 
Kingdom  of  God,  p.  274  f. 


318  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

fords  strong  proof  of  the  proposition  that  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man  did  not  always  have  reference  to 
a  particular  historical  event.  It  is  this  :  one  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man  is  with  clouds  (Mk.  xiv.  62),  and 
is  associated  with  individual  judgment  (Mt.  xxiv. 
37-41;  Lk.  xvii.  26-37);  the  other  coming  is  with 
angels,  and  is  associated  with  general  judgment  (Mk. 
viii.  38;  Mt.  xxv.  31).  In  no  case  is  the  coming 
with  clouds  alone  associated  with  a  general  judgment, 
and  in  no  case  is  the  coming  with  angels,  whether 
with  or  without  the  accompaniment  of  clouds,  disas- 
sociated from  a  general  judgment.  The  coming  with 
clouds  is  spoken  of  as  falling  within  that  generation 
(Mk.  xiv.  62);  the  coming  with  angels  is  never  said 
to  lie  within  the  lifetime  of  those  who  heard  Jesus. 
There  are  two  apparent  exceptions  to  these  state- 
ments. In  Mt.  xvi.  28  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man 
in  His  kingdom  follows  immediately  upon  a  refer- 
ence to  His  coming  with  the  angels,  and  so  seems 
at  first  to  be  identified  with  it ;  and  this  coming  in 
His  kingdom  is  to  be  within  the  lifetime  of  some  of 
His  hearers.  But  Mark  and  Luke  report  the  thought 
of  Jesus  in  such  a  way  that  the  event  which  some  of 
the  hearers  will  witness  is  clearly  discriminated  from 
the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  with  angels,  which  is 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse  (Mk.  ix.  1  ;  Lk.  ix. 
27).     In    view    of    these    parallels,    therefore,    and    in 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S   KINGDOM     319 

view  of  the  evidence  that  Matthew  himself  elsewhere 
designates  two  different  events  by  the  term  parousia, 
and  that  he  puts  the  coming  to  general  judgment  at 
the  end  of  the  age  (Mt.  xxv.  31),  we  must  conclude 
that  the  event  of  Mt.  xvi.  28,  even  though  it  may  have 
been  regarded  by  the  evangelist  as  identical  with  that 
of  Mt.  xvi.  27,  was  different  from  it  in  the  thought  of 
Jesus. 

The  other  apparent  exception  is  in  Lk.  xxi.  28, 
where,  immediately  after  that  reference  to  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man  which  Mark  and  Matthew  put  at 
the  end  of  the  age,  Jesus  says  to  His  disciples,  "  When 
these  things  begin  to  come  to  pass,  look  up  and  lift  up 
your  heads,  for  your  deliverance  draweth  nigh."  This 
gives  the  impression  that  some  of  His  disciples  would 
see  the  foregoing  parousia,  which  both  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew speak  of  as  the  parousia  with  angels.  But  the 
phrase  " these  things"  may  go  back  to  the  beginning 
of  the  apocalyptic  section,  verse  8,  and  consequently 
may  not  refer  to  the  parousia  itself.  Therefore,  the 
evidence,  if  not  perfectly  conclusive,  is  very  strong 
that  the  parousia  with  angels,  and  associated  with  a 
general  judgment,  is  never  referred  to  as  coming 
within  the  lifetime  of  the  first  Christian  generation ; 
while  the  parousia  with  clouds,  but  not  with  angels, 
is  brought  within  that  generation. 

These,  then,  are  the  arguments   in   support   of   the 


320  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

proposition  that  the  evangelists  spoke  of  two  separate 
events  under  the  name  of  a  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man.  One  precedes  the  evangelization  of  the  cities 
of  Israel ;  the  other  is  at  the  end  of  the  age.  One 
is  sudden  and  unexpected ;  the  other  is  preceded  by 
well-known  signs.  One  is  chronologically  fixed  by 
Jesus  within  relatively  narrow  limits ;  the  time  of  the 
other  is  known  to  the  Father  alone.  One  is  associ- 
ated with  clouds  and  individual  judgment;  the  other 
with  angels  and  a  general  judgment.  And,  lastly, 
there  is  the  improbability  that  Jesus  expected  the 
world  to  be  leavened  within  a  generation.  Taken 
together,  these  arguments  seem  to  establish,  on  a 
firm  foundation,  the  proposition  that  the  term  parou- 
sia  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  designates  two  different 
events. 

We  have  now  to  consider  those  references  to  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man  which  treat  it  as  falling 
c  The  within    the    lifetime    of    the    generation    to 

coming  of  which  Jesus  spoke;  and  we  might  appropri- 
man  within      ately    bring    all    these    passages    under    the 

the  first 

Christian        head  of  the  parotisia  with  clouds,  since  this 
parousia,  in  each  of  the  Gospels,  is  spoken  of 
as  lying  within  the  horizon  of  people  then  living. 

It  was  before  the  sanhedrin  that  Jesus  spoke  of  a 
coming  with  clouds  which  should  fall  within  the  life- 
time of    His  judges.       The  high  priest  had  demanded 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S   KINGDOM     32 1 

that   Jesus    should   declare,  on    oath,  whether  He  was 
the  Messiah.     Jesus  replied,  "I   am,  and  ye  shall  see 
the  Son  of  man  sitting  on   the  right    hand  of    power, 
and  coming  with  the   clouds  of  heaven"  (Mk.  xiv.  62; 
Mt.   xxvi.    64).       Jesus    stood   before   the    sanhedrin    a 
prisoner.       His    appearance   was   wholly  un-Messianic, 
as  judged  by  the  popular  standard.     Yet  He  declares 
that     He    is    the    Messiah,    and    the    following    words 
seem  to  be  a  reference  to  the  future  for  proof  of  His 
claim.      The  judges    shall   yet    see    Him,  the  prisoner 
of   the  present,  seated   on   the    right    hand    of    power, 
that    is,  at    the    right    hand  of    God.       This  language 
plainly  suggests  some  sort  of   future  exaltation  which 
shall    justify    His    claim  to  be    the    Messiah.       It    is 
probable,    therefore,    at    the    outset,    that    the    words 
"coming    with    clouds"    express    a    kindred    thought. 
This   probability   is   strengthened,    if    not   raised   to   a 
certainty,   by   the    fact   that    Luke   drops   the   coming 
with  clouds,  and  simply  says,  "  From  henceforth  shall 
the  Son  of  man  be  seated  at  the  right    hand    of    the 
power  of  God"  (Lk.  xxii.  69).     This  fact  may  indicate, 
in  the  last  analysis,  that    in    the    circle  of    Christians 
from  which  Luke  drew  his  material,  the  coming  with 
the  clouds  of   heaven  was  not  regarded  as  expressing 
any  thought  that  was  not  involved  in  the  being  seated 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God.     If,  however, 
Luke   found   the   clause   in  his  source,  and  purposely 


322  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

dropped  it,  he  probably  did  so  because  he  did  not 
regard  it  as  adding  anything  to  the  thought.  There- 
fore, we  conclude  that  the  omission  of  the  clause 
from  Luke's  Gospel  is  an  argument  for  the  view, 
that  the  essential  thought  of  the  verse  is  that  of 
being  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  And  this 
language  describes  an  event  which  Caiaphas  and  the 
sanhedrin  were  yet  to  see. 

We  find  further  light  on  the  meaning  of  this 
parousia  with  clouds  in  a  word  which  Jesus  spoke  at 
Caesarea  Philippi.  He  warned  His  disciples  against 
being  ashamed  of  Him  and  His  words  (Mk.  viii.  38  ; 
Lk.  ix.  26).  There  was  special  need  of  such  a  warn- 
ing just  at  that  time,  for  the  people  of  Galilee,  as  a 
whole,  had  turned  against  Jesus,  and  many  of  His 
former  followers  had  left  Him.  He  enforced  His 
warning  by  a  reference  to  the  final  judgment,  when 
the  Son  of  man  will  be  ashamed  of  those  who  are 
now  ashamed  of  Him.  Then  Jesus  goes  on  to  tell 
His  disciples  that  a  change  of  tide  is  coming  in  the 
near  future,  and  that  some  of  them  will  live  to  see 
the  kingdom  of  God  established  with  power.  That 
kingdom  of  which  they  are  now  in  danger  of  being 
ashamed,  it  is  so  insignificant  and  so  unlike  the  king- 
dom of  their  national  hope  —  that  kingdom  will  be 
manifested  in  power  within  their  lifetime.  This  is 
the  great  hope  which  He  holds  up  before  them. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     323 

The  language  of  this  prophetic  saying  of  Jesus 
varies  in  the  different  records,  and  the  variations  are 
significant,  whether  we  think  of  the  narratives  as 
independent  or  not.  Mark  says,  "  Until  they  see  the 
kingdom  of  God  having  come  with  power."  Luke 
has  essentially  the  same  thought,  for  he  says,  "  Until 
they  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  He  has  not  the 
words  "  come  with  power,"  but  his  context  implies 
the  thought  of  these  words.  For  Jesus  is  promising 
His  disciples  a  vision  to  gladden  their  heart;  and 
when  He  says,  "  There  are  some  of  those  standing 
here  who  shall  by  no  means  taste  of  death  until  they 
see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  that  obviously  means  a 
manifestation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  unlike  what 
they  see  at  present,  or,  in  other  words,  a  triumphant 
manifestation,  a  coming  of  the  kingdom  with  power. 

Now  Matthew,  while  having  the  same  situation,  uses 
different  language  and  says,  "  Until  they  see  the  Son  of 
man  coming  in  His  kingdom  "  (Mt.  xvi.  28).  We  have 
shown  in  the  last  paragraph  that  Matthew  can  hardly 
have  identified  this  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  with  His 
coming  at  the  end  of  the  age ;  and  therefore  the  pre- 
sumption is  strong  that  his  language,  "  the  Son  of  man 
coming  in  His  kingdom,"  contains  the  same  thought 
that  is  expressed  in  the  plainer  terms  of  Mark  and 
Luke.  These  writers  express  the  thought  in  a  form 
intelligible  to  the  Gentiles,  while  Matthew  uses  a  figure 


324  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

borrowed  from  the  Jewish  literature,  which  would  not 
be  plain  to  Gentiles. 

I  hold,  then,  that  Matthew's  expression,  "the  Son  of 
man  coming  in  His  kingdom,"  is  the  exact  equivalent 
of  Mark's  language,  "  the  kingdom  of  God  come  with 
power."  Now  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  last  expres- 
sion, there  can  hardly  be  any  serious  question.  The 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God  with  power  is  a  power- 
ful triumph  of  the  Gospel,  a  striking  realization  of  the 
principles  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.1  This,  then,  is 
what  Jesus  promises  that  some  of  His  disciples  shall 
see. 

Now,  in  the  light  of  this  passage,  we  turn  again  to  the 
word  which  Jesus  spoke  to  the  sanhedrin,  "  Ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  power, 
and  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven."  Here,  as  in  the 
other  passage,  is  an  event  which  the  present  genera- 
tion shall  witness.  Here,  as  there,  we  have  a  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man.  Here,  as  there,  the  context  requires 
the  thought  of  an  exaltation  of  Jesus.  I  conclude,  there- 
fore, that  this  language  of  Jesus  before  the  sanhedrin, 
interpreted  by  its  own  context,  and  in  the  light  of  the 
parallel  passage,  looked  toward  a  great  triumph  of  the 
Gospel  which  His  judges  should  live  to  see.2 

1  Comp.  Haupt,  Eschatologische  Anssagen  Jesu  in  den  Synoptischen 
Evangelien,  p.  121. 

2  For  the  origin  of  the  phrase  "  coming  with  the  clouds,"  see  Dan.  vii.  13. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE    MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     325 

Hence  the  event  which  the  judges  of  Jesus  are  to 
see  is  the  same  which  He  held  up  before  His  disciples 
in  the  days  which  He  spent  at  Caesarea  Philippi.  And 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  is  recorded  in  Acts.  The 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God  with  power,  or  the  com- 
ing of  the  Son  of  man  on  the  clouds  of  heaven,  was 
realized  in  the  signal  triumph  of  the  Gospel  through  the 
two  decades  subsequent  to  the  crucifixion,  beginning 
with  Pentecost,  and  resulting,  in  this  short  period,  in  the 
establishment  of  Christian  churches  throughout  Pales- 
tine, Asia  Minor,  and  Greece,  and  as  far  away  as  Rome 
in  the  West,  and  probably  as  far  as  Babylon  in  the 
East.  These  events  showed,  indeed,  that  Jesus  was 
seated  at  the  right  hand  of  power. 

Further,  we  must  hold  that  it  was  this  event  which 
Jesus  had  in  view  when  He  exhorted  His  disciples  to 
be  watchful  because  they  knew  not  the  hour  when  their 
Lord  would  come.  He  uttered  such  words  of  exhorta- 
tion on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  perhaps  on  other  occa- 
sions during  the  last  days.  The  briefest  statement  of 
the  thought  is  in  Mark ;  the  most  elaborate  in  Matthew. 
In  Mark,  Jesus  likens  His  disciples  to  doorkeepers, 
whose  business  it  is  to  watch  for  the  return  of  their 
Lord.  He  may  come  at  evening,  or  at  midnight,  or  at 
cock-crowing,  or  in  the  morning ;  they  know  not  when. 
They  must  watch  lest  he  come  and  find  them  sleeping 
(Mk.  xiii.  33-37).     In  Matthew  and  Luke  this  thought 


326  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

appears  in  various  forms.  Thus,  the  parousia  of  the 
Son  of  man  shall  be  as  lightning,  that  is,  sudden  (Mt. 
xxiv.  27;  Lk.  xvii.  24).  It  shall  come  as  the  flood 
came  upon  the  generation  of  Noah,  and  as  the  rain  of 
fire  came  upon  Sodom  (Mt.  xxiv.  37-41  ;  Lk.  xvii.  26- 
37).  Therefore,  the  disciples  are  to  be  as  wise  ser- 
vants who  watch  (Mt.  xxiv.  42-44;  xxv.  1-13  ;  Lk.  xii. 
39-40;  xxi.  34-36).  Their  readiness  for  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man  will  consist  in  the  faithful  doing  of 
the  duties  which  He  has  appointed  them  (Mt.  xxiv.  45- 
47;    Lk.  xii.  41-46;   Mt.  xxv.  14-30;    Lk.  xix.  u-27). 

Another  word  of  Luke's  Gospel  belongs  here, 
namely,  that  of  xvii.  22.  According  to  this,  Jesus 
said  to  His  disciples  on  a  certain  occasion  that  a  time 
would  come  when  they  would  desire  to  see  one  of  the 
days  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  would  not  see  it.  This  is 
to  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  prospect  of  the  suf- 
fering and  trial  to  which  the  disciples  will  be  exposed. 
When  severe  trials  come  upon  them,  they  will  long  to 
see  the  days  of  the  Son  of  man,  that  is,  days  of  His 
triumph.  This  passage  plainly  contemplates  a  period 
in  which  the  Son  of  man  will  give  deliverance  and 
prosperity  to  His  disciples  —  a  conception  which  is 
obviously  in  line  with  the  interpretation  which  makes 
the  near  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  or  His  com- 
ing with  clouds,  equivalent  to  the  triumph  of  the 
Gospel. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     327 

We  pass  on  now  to  consider  that  coming  of  the  Son 
of  man  which  is  at  the  end  of  the  age.  There  are 
three  passages  which  speak  of  a  parousia 
with  angels  (Mk.  viii.  38;  Lk.  ix.  26;  Mt.  coming  of 
xvi.  27-28).  The  first  is  found  in  all  the  ^^ 
Synoptists,  though  Matthew's  version  is  end  of  the 
somewhat  different  from  that  of  Mark  and 
Luke.  It  is  the  word  which  was  spoken  at  Csesarea 
Philippi.  Jesus  had  announced  that  the  way  of  His 
disciples,  like  His  own,  would  be  a  way  of  self-denial 
and  death.  Hence,  they  would  be  tempted  to  deny 
Him.  He  warns  them  against  this  by  stating  the  im- 
measurable evil  which  results  from  such  a  denial.  It 
will  involve  a  rejection  by  the  Son  of  man  when  He 
comes  in  the  glory  of  the  Father  with  the  holy  angels 
(Mk.  Lk.).  Matthew's  report  is  more  general.  He 
says  that  the  Son  of  man  will  render  to  each  accord- 
ing to  his  deed,  that  is,  to  the  good  and  the  bad  alike. 
He  has  not  the  saying  about  being  ashamed  of  Jesus 
and  of  His  words ;  but  he  connects  the  announcement  of 
judgment  with  the  general  law,  that  he  who  will  save 
his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  he  who  will  lose  it  shall  find 
it  (Mt.  xvi.  25-26).  The  argument  is  that  one  who 
loses  life  for  Christ's  sake  makes  an  infinite  gain  ;  for 
when  Jesus  comes  in  His  great  glory  at  last,  He  will 
render  to  each  man  according  to  his  work. 

The  second  passage  is  in  the  Eschatological  Discourse. 


328  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Mark  and  Matthew  give  it  in  essential  agreement,  while 
Luke  omits  the  gathering  of  the  elect  (Mk.  xiii.  26-27; 
Mt.  xxiv.  30-31  ;  Lk.  xxi.  27).  The  coming  of  the  Son 
of  man  is  here  preceded  by  great  signs,  and  is  wit- 
nessed by  all  men.  The  signs  are  those  which  in  the 
Old  Testament  are  associated  with  the  day  of  Jehovah 
(Joel  ii.  30-31;  Amos  viii.  9;  Is.  xiii.  10;  xxxiv.  4). 
Sun  and  moon  are  darkened,  the  stars  fall,  and  the 
powers  of  the  heavens  are  shaken.  Matthew  seems 
to  think  also  of  a  particular  phenomenon  which  he 
calls  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  (Mt.  xxiv.  3,  30),  but 
he  leaves  it  undefined.  Both  Mark  and  Matthew  say 
that  when  the  Son  of  man  comes,  thus  heralded,  He 
will  send  forth  His  angels,  and  they  will  gather  His 
elect  together  from  the  whole  earth. 

The  third  passage  is  the  great  judgment  scene  in 
Mt.  xxv.  31-46,  where  the  Son  of  man  comes  in 
glory  with  His  angels  and  holds  an  assize  upon  all 
nations.  No  function  of  the  angels  is  here  directly 
mentioned.  Not  only  the  good,  but  the  bad  also,  are 
gathered.  The  passage  deals  particularly  with  the 
test  of  judgment. 

These  are  the  only  passages  that  speak  of  a  parousia 
with  angels,  but  they  are  not  the  only  data  which  we 
have  to  consider.  Before  the  time  of  Cacsarea  Philippi, 
Jesus  had  spoken  of  the  end  of  the  age,  when  the 
angels    would    be   sent   forth    by  the    Son    of   man    to 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     329 

gather  His  elect,  and  to  remove  out  of  His  kingdom  all 
stumbling-blocks,  and  consign  them  to  the  furnace  of 
fire  (Mt.  xiii.  30,  50).  These  two  scenes  in  the  para- 
bles of  the  Tares  and  the  Drag-net  are  obviously 
parallel  to  the  three  passages  which  have  just  been 
noticed.  Their  time  is  the  end  of  the  age,  and  that 
is  manifestly  the  time  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man 
which  is  heralded  by  the  great  signs.  The  signs 
themselves,  in  view  of  the  Old  Testament  use,  point 
to  the  consummation  of  the  present  order  of  things, 
and  moreover,  Matthew  explicitly  couples  this  parousia 
with  the  end  of  the  age  (Mt.  xxiv.  3,  30).  Therefore, 
also,  the  judgment  scene  of  Mt.  xxv.,  which  closes  with 
the  irreversible  awards,  must  be  regarded  as  belonging, 
in  the  thought  of  the  evangelist,  to  the  end  of  the  age. 

The  two  parable  scenes  of  Matthew  agree  with  the 
three  distinctive  parousia  passages  not  merely  in  time. 
In  those  as  well  as  in  these,  the  Son  of  man  takes  the 
initiative  in  the  act  of  judgment;  He  sends  forth  the 
angels  who  gather  the  elect;  there  is  a  final  separa- 
tion of  bad  and  good ;  and  the  two  classes  receive 
their  awards  from  the  Son  of  man. 

We  are  now  ready  to  ask  after  the  meaning  of  this 
parousia  with  angels,  or  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man 
at  the  end  of  the  age.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  there 
are  two  constant  elements  in  the  various  passages,  and 
these  are  a  general  Messianic  judgment   and  the  end 


330  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

of  the  age.  The  angels  contribute  nothing  essential. 
In  the  great  scene  in  Mt.  xxv.  31-46,  they  have  no 
part,  and  seem  to  be  mentioned  only  to  heighten 
the  glory  and  majesty  of  the  event,  as  in  the  Book  of 
Enoch;1  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  judgment  scene 
to  which  Jesus  referred  at  Caesarea  Philippi.  Then, 
what  is  still  more  striking  and  important,  the  coming 
itself  seems  not  to  be  treated  as  essential  to  the 
thought  of  these  judgment  passages.  For  in  two  of 
the  five  scenes  the  Son  of  man  is  represented  as 
remaining  in  heaven,  and  as  sending  forth  His  angels 
from  thence,  to  gather  His  elect  unto  Him.  Again, 
in  the  Olivet  discourse,  the  coming  itself  seems  to 
have  no  other  significance  than  to  mark  the  end  of 
the  age.  It  is  followed  by  the  sending  forth  of  the 
angels,  who  gather  the  elect,  just  as  was  done  in  the 
two  preceding  scenes  without  a  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man.  Therefore,  I  incline  to  hold  that,  in  the  thought 
of  Jesus  in  these  passages,  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man  was  not  a  feature  of  fundamental  significance,  but 
was  rather  a  figurative  announcement  of  the  consum- 
mation of  the  age.  It  is  a  grand,  luminous  Finis  at 
the  bottom  of  the  last  page  of   earthly  history. 

The    two    ideas    common    to  all    the    five   judgment 
passages  are  the  end  of  the  age  and  Messianic  judg- 

1  Chapter  i.  4,  9;    comp.  Haupt,  Kschatologische  Aussagen  Jesu  in   den 
Synoptischen  Evangelien,  p.  116. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     331 

ment  To  sum  up,  now,  the  discussion  of  this  most 
difficult  point,  we  may  say  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  in  regard  to  the  parousia  of  the  Son 
of  man,  in  either  sense  of  that  term,  does  not  involve  any 
personal  return  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  this  earth.  The 
earlier  coming  consisted  primarily  in  the  triumph  of 
the  Gospel  within  the  first  Christian  generation, 
though  not  to  be  limited  to  that  generation ;  and  the 
coming  at  the  end  of  the  age,  according  to  the  inti- 
mation of  the  words  of  Jesus,  is  simply  a  mark  of  the 
consummation.  It  is  a  figurative  expression,  just  as 
the  coming  with  clouds  is  figurative.  One  is  a  symbol 
of  power;  the  other  a  symbol  of  the  arrival  of  the 
time  of  judgment.1 

The  most  difficult  topic  in  the  eschatology  of  Jesus  is 
that  which  has  just  been  discussed,  namely,  the  parousia. 
The  silence  of  the  fourth  Gospel  in  regard  to   TTT  m 

r  °  IV.   The 

this  subject  accords  well  with  the  interpreta-  thought  of 

Jesus  in 

tion  which  has  been  given.     When  this  Gos-  regard  to 

i  .1  •  r    t  1         judgment. 

pel  was  written,  the  coming  of  Jesus  on  the  a.  The  time 
clouds  had  long  been  a  reality  in  the  history  °  Judsment- 
of  the  Church,  and  might  easily  be  dropped;  and  the  com- 
ing with  angels  at  the  end  of  the  age  does  not  appear, 
for  the  author  lays  all  stress  upon  a  present  judgment. 

Closely  associated  with  the  parousia  in  the  teaching 
of    Jesus   is    the    subject    of   judgment,    and   the    first 

1  Comp.  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  556. 


332  THE   REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

point  to  be  considered  in  discussing  this  subject  is 
the  time  when  men  are  judged.  Since  judgment  is 
associated  with  the  parousia,  both  the  nearer  and 
the  more  remote,  the  time  of  judgment  is  determined 
by  the  time  of  the  parousia.  In  connection  with  the 
earlier  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  it  is  said,  in  Mat- 
thew, "There  shall  be  two  men  in  the  field:  one  is 
taken  and  the  other  left"  (Mt.  xxiv.  40).  Both  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  report  the  saying,  "Two  women  are 
grinding  at  the  mill :  one  is  taken  and  one  is  left " 
(Mt.  xxiv.  41  ;  Lk.  xvii.  35).  Luke  has  another 
similar  saying,  "In  this  night  there  shall  be  two 
men  in  one  bed :  one  shall  be  taken  and  the  other 
shall  be  left"  (Lk.  xvii.  34).  Again,  we  have  the 
thought  of  judgment  in  the  various  sayings  about 
faithful  and  unfaithful  servants  {e.g.  Lk.  xii.  37  ;  xxi. 
34-36;  Mk.  xiii.  33-37;  Mt-  xxiv-  45,  4^-5 l  J  Lk. 
xii.  43,  45-46).  The  virgins  whose  lamps  are  trimmed 
go  in  to  the  feast ;  but  those  whose  lamps  have  no  oil  are 
not  admitted  (Mt.  xxv.  1— 13).  The  servants  with  talents 
and  pounds  are  rewarded  according  to  the  use  they  have 
made  of  their  money,  when  their  master  comes  back 
from  his  journey  (Mt.  xxv.  14),  or  when  their  lord  re- 
turns, who  had  gone  to  seek  a  kingdom  (Lk.  xix.  15).1 

1  These  parables  might  have  been  spoken  in  view  of  the  parousia  at  the 
end  of  the  age,  but  seem  not  to  have  been  so  regarded  by  the  evangelists. 
Comp.  Lk.  xix.  11  with  be.  27;   Mt.  xxv.  13. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     333 

Thus  we  have  judgment  associated  by  Jesus  with 
that  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  which  His  own 
generation  was  destined  to  experience.  Now  this 
coming,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  not  a  single 
fact  but  a  process.  The  coming  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  with  power,  or  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man 
on  the  clouds  of  heaven,  was  not  limited  to  Pentecost, 
or  to  any  single  victory  of  the  Gospel.  That  king- 
dom had  a  powerful  manifestation  in  the  first  Chris- 
tian generation ;  but  the  word  of  Jesus  was  not 
exhausted  when  that  generation  passed.  The  events 
of  the  apostolic  age  have  been  repeated  in  kind,  if 
not  in  degree,  in  all  the  ages  that  have  followed. 
The  Son  of  man  has  been  coming,  and  is  still  com- 
ing, in  His  kingdom.  Jesus  foretold  a  fact  that  would 
fall  within  His  own  generation,  but  He  did  not  set 
bounds  to  it,  and  say  that  this  coming  on  the  clouds 
would  not  reach  into  the  next  generation  and  the 
next.  Now  since  Jesus  associated  judgment  with  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  since  that  com- 
ing was  not  thought  of  as  a  single  fact  but  as  a  pro- 
cess, it  is  plain  that  we  have  a  process  of  judgment 
coextensive  with  the  process  which  is  called  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

But  in  speaking  of  the  parousia  at  the  end  of  the 
age,  we  have  seen  that  judgment  is  associated  with 
this    also,    and   the   judgment   which   is    described    in 


334  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

these  passages  is  general  in  character.  Have  we, 
then,  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  a  process  of  judgment 
and  also  a  final  act  of  judgment?  Or  we  may  put 
the  question  in  another  form,  and  ask  whether  these 
Gospels,  in  putting  a  great  judgment  scene  at  the 
end  of  the  age,  think  of  the  essential  truth  of  that 
scene  as  limited  to  the  end  of  the  age  ?  To  this  ques- 
tion, I  think  a  negative  answer  must  be  given.  And 
this  negative  reply  is  justified  by  the  following  con- 
siderations. First,  in  no  passage  regarding  the  so- 
called  final  judgment  is  there  the  slightest  intimation 
that  it  concerns  more  than  a  single  generation,  that 
is,  the  generation  which  is  then  on  the  earth.  Sec- 
ond, the  word  of  Jesus  to  the  dying  robber  implies 
that  the  final  judgment  is  accomplished  during  the 
Messianic  age  as  well  as  its  end.  Jesus  says,  "  To- 
day shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise "  (Lk.  xxiii. 
43).  To  be  in  Paradise  with  Christ  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  different  from  the  reward  which  is  be- 
stowed upon  the  righteous  at  the  final  judgment. 
Paradise  means  heaven  both  in  the  Jewish  and  the 
Christian  writings.1  The  Jewish  view,  that  it  is  an 
apartment  in  the  under-world,  is  of    late  origin.2     But 

1  Comp.  2  Cor.  xii.  4;  Rev.  ii.  7.  Also  Psalms  of  Solomon  xiv.  2; 
2  Esdras  viii.  52;  Wiinsche,  Ncne  Beitrlige  zar  Erlauterung  der  Evange- 
lien  aus  Talmud  71ml  Midrasch,  p.  491.  The  Book  of  Enoch  xxxii.  2 
seems  to  think  of  a  Paradise  on  earth. 

2  Comp.  Weber,  Die  Lehren  da  Talmnds,  p.  326. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     335 

to  be  in  heaven  with  Christ  presupposes  the  Messi- 
anic judgment.  Therefore  we  have  in  this  word  to 
the  robber  a  plain  expression  of  the  real  thought  of 
Jesus.  For  we  cannot  hold  that  what  He  promised 
to  the  dying  robber  was  exceptional.  Had  John  or 
Peter  or  any  other  disciple  died  in  that  hour,  trust- 
ing in  Jesus  as  did  the  robber,  we  must  suppose  that 
he  would  have  been  in  Paradise  with  Christ  imme- 
diately after  death,  and  consequently  must  suppose 
that  for  him  the  final  judgment  would  have  been 
accomplished  in  that  same  hour.  Therefore  we  are 
justified  in  saying  that  in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  ac- 
cording to  the  Synoptists,  the  final  judgment  of  the 
individual  is  at  the  close  of  the  earthly  life.  It  is 
not  far  hence  in  the  future,  at  the  end  of  the  present 
dispensation.  There  is  no  interval  between  death  and 
judgment,  and  therefore  there  is  no  intermediate  state 
in  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

In  conclusion  on  this  point,  we  may  say  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  first  three 
Gospels,  the  earthly  life  is  the  time  of  judgment. 
There  is  no  reference  to  a  judgment  for  any  man 
later  than  the  hour  of  his  passing  from  the  visible 
to  the  invisible  world.  We  shall  see  in  another  para- 
graph that  Jesus  makes  no  essential  difference  be- 
tween the  judgment  which  He  associates  with  His 
nearer  coming   and   the  judgment  which    He    puts   at 


336  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

the  end  of  the  age.  The  only  difference  lies  in  the 
location  of  the  judgment.  And  looking  at  an  in- 
dividual soul,  the  only  difference  between  the  judg- 
ment which  is  passed  upon  it  in  the  course  of  its 
earthly  history  and  the  judgment  at  the  close  of  that 
history  is  that  the  latter  is  conceived  of  as  final, 
while  the  other  is  not.  A  man  who  rejects  Christ 
to-day  may  at  some  future  time  before  the  hour  of 
death  turn  to  Him,  and  thus  reverse  the  judgment 
which  had  been  passed  upon  him ;  but  the  judg- 
ment at  the  end  of  life  is  the  end  of  judgment. 
Jesus  teaches  that  this  is  irreversible.  Thus  life  is 
the  time  of  judgment,  and  in  the  hour  when  the 
soul  passes  from  the  material  to  the  immaterial 
sphere,  it  passes  a  line  beyond  which  there  is  no 
more  judgment. 

The  standard  of  righteousness  which  Jesus  set  up 

for   His  kingdom  is  ideal,  and   therefore   must   be  the 

standard  for  all  times.     Character  that  meets 

b.  The 

standard  of  the  approval  of  God  from  day  to  day  will 
meet  His  approval  in  the  last  day.  From  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  membership  in  His  king- 
dom here  and  now,  we  should  feel  perfectly  certain 
what  must  be  His  final  test ;  and  when  we  examine  His 
words  of  judgment,  we  find  the  same  standard,  ex- 
pressed or  implied,  which  is  everywhere  involved  in 
the   religious   and   ethical   teaching    of   Jesus.      In  all 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     337 

those  passages  which  concern  the  nearer  coming  of 
the  Son  of  man,  that  event  is  a  blessing  or  a  curse 
according  as  a  man  is  prepared  for  it  or  unprepared. 
He  is  prepared  who  is  keeping  the  word  of  the  Master ; 
he  is  unprepared  who  is  not  keeping  it.  The  door- 
keeper who  watches  for  the  lord  of  the  house  (Mk.  xiii. 
33-37),  the  servant  who  is  wisely  administering  the 
household  intrusted  to  him  (Mt.  xxiv.  44-51),  the  vir- 
gins who  are  ready  for  the  bridegroom  (Mt.  xxv.  1— 13), 
the  servant  who  is  faithful  in  the  use  of  the  talent  or 
pound  committed  to  him  (Mt.  xxv.  14-30;  Lk.  xix. 
11-27) — t0  these  the  coming  of  the  kingdom,  or  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  brings  a  blessing. 

If  now  we  look  at  the  more  formal  references  to 
judgment,  we  shall  find  the  standard  defined  in  both 
general  and  specific  terms.  The  parables  of  the  Tares 
and  the  Drag-net  speak  of  those  whom  the  angels 
gather  into  the  kingdom  as  righteous  (Mt.  xiii.  43,  49). 
The  first  parable  suggests  that  this  righteousness  is 
connected  in  some  way  with  the  Son  of  man,  for  the 
wheat,  which  symbolizes  the  righteous,  is  the  harvest 
from  the  good  seed  which  the  Son  of  man  sowed 
(Mt.  xiii.  38).  This  suggests,  in  general,  that  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  leads  to  a  right- 
eousness which  inherits  heaven ;  but  it  does  not  give 
details. 
.    Again,  we  have  a  general  statement  of  the  standard 


338  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

in  Matthew's  version  of  the  words  which  Jesus  spoke 
at  Caesarea  Philippi.  He  says  that  the  Son  of  man 
will  render  to  each  one  according  to  his  works  (Mt. 
xvi.  27),  and  the  foregoing  context  divides  works  into 
two  fundamental  sorts,  —  one  of  which  is  termed  saving 
ones  own  life,  and  the  other  losing  one's  life  for 
Christ's  sake  (Mt.  xvi.  24-26).  This  limitation  from 
the  context  makes  the  standard  somewhat  specific,  for 
it  indicates  that  the  acceptable  life  is  the  one  in  which 
Jesus  has  been  the  central  motive.  But  the  standard 
is  stated  in  a  more  specific  form  in  the  parallels  of 
Mark  and  Luke  (Mk.  viii.  38 ;  Lk.  ix.  26).  Jesus  here 
says,  "  Whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  me  and  of 
my  words  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation, 
of  him  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  ashamed  when  he 
comes  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  the  holy  an- 
gels." Here  the  test  question  is  the  question  of  the 
personal  relation  of  the  soul  to  Jesus.  Has  it  con- 
fessed Him  as  the  Messiah  (Mt.  x.  32,  33),  or  has 
it  been  ashamed  of  Him,  and  so  denied  Him  ?  The 
future  depends  upon  the  answer  to  this  question. 

The  standard  of  judgment  is  described  still  more 
simply  and  practically  in  the  dramatic  scene  of  judg- 
ment which  Matthew  alone  has  preserved  (Mt.  xxv. 
31-46).  Here  they  are  called  righteous  and  blessed 
of  the  Father,  who,  in  the  test  of  life,  manifested  the 
spirit  of  Jesus.     They  have  ministered  to  the  brothers 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE  MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM    339 

of  Jesus,  even  the  least.  When  hungry,  they  have 
given  them  meat ;  when  thirsty,  they  have  given 
them  drink ;  when  strangers,  they  have  taken  them 
in ;  when  naked,  they  have  clothed  them ;  when  in 
prison,  they  have  come  to  them.  These  common 
needs  are  taken  as  representing  all  needs.  The 
blessed  ones  who  inherit  the  everlasting  kingdom 
have  felt  these  needs  of  the  needy  as  their  own,  and 
have  responded  to  them.  This  lowly  service  receives 
so  high  honor  from  the  King  because  it  is  counted 
as  done  to  Him.  Now  it  is  perfectly  manifest  that 
He  could  not  count  a  service  as  done  to  Him,  and 
reward  it  accordingly,  unless  it  was  done  out  of  regard 
for  Him.  A  self-righteous  Pharisee  might  do  all 
the  services  which  are  here  enumerated  by  Jesus. 
He  might  do  them  with  admirable  patience  and  zeal 
and  self-sacrifice,  as  many  a  Pharisee  who  expected 
to  earn  heaven  by  his  good  works  actually  did.  But 
would  Jesus  say  to  such  an  one,  "  Come,  thou  blessed 
of  my  Father "  ?  That  is  impossible,  for  He  was 
radically  opposed  to  this  conception  of  righteousness, 
and  smote  it  with  sternest  denunciation.  He  located 
righteousness  in  the  purpose  of  the  heart,  in  trust 
and  love  and  purity ;  and  taught  that  the  kingdom 
of  God,  instead  of  being  earned  by  meritorious  works, 
which  are  of  value  to  God,  must  be  received  as  a  gift. 
It    is,    therefore,    inconceivable    that    He    thought    of 


340  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

these  little  services,  which  He  mentioned  to  the  credit 
of  the  righteous,  as  being  so  valuable  in  themselves 
that  the  doer  merited  heaven.  This  would  have  been 
in  direct  antagonism  to  His  own  fundamental  teach- 
ing. They  are  valuable  rather  because  of  the  spirit 
that  is  in  them,  or,  in  other  words,  because  they  are 
done  unto  Him.  The  thought  of  the  passage  is  just 
that  of  the  other  words  of  Jesus,  "  Whosoever  shall 
give  you  a  cup  of  water  to  drink  because  ye  are  Christ's, 
verily  I  say  unto  you  he  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  re- 
ward." The  virtue  is  in  the  motive,  and  the  motive 
is  the  name  of  Jesus.  The  surprise  of  the  righteous 
at  the  words  spoken  by  the  Judge  is  simply  surprise 
at  the  exceeding  grace  of  His  judgment,  that  He 
counts  each  of  the  little  forgotten  services  of  their 
earthly  lives  as  a  personal  service  to  Him.  To  be 
sure,  they  had  done  these  services  to  the  lowly  in  His 
name,  inspired  by  His  love  ;  but  the  heavenly  Lord 
rates  each  service  as  though  it  had  been  rendered  to 
Him  in  person.  /  was  hungry,  I  was  thirsty,  /  was 
naked,  and  ye  did  it  unto  me,  to  me.  This  is  the  occa- 
sion of  their  surprise. 

We  conclude,  then,  on  this  point,  that  while  the 
standard  of  judgment  is  here  stated  in  concrete  terms 
of  life,  it  is  essentially  the  same  standard  which  we 
have  found  elsewhere.  The  standard  is  righteousness, 
or,    more    specifically,    it   is   confessing  Jesus,  or,  most 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     341 

specifically,  it  is  living  as  Jesus  lived.  But  these 
answers  are  essentially  one.  To  be  righteous  is  to  be 
like  Jesus.  To  confess  Jesus  truly  is,  again,  to  be  like 
Him.  Confessing  Him  is  not  so  much  intellectual 
as  vital.  And  to  be  like  Jesus  is  to  serve  men  in  the 
love  of  God.  Hence  the  lowliest  service  which  reveals 
the  spirit  of  Jesus  may  be  taken  as  the  criterion  in  the 
final  judgment  for  eternity. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  standard  in  the  Messianic 
judgment  is  a  standard  of  character  and  life,  wholly 
simple  and  reasonable.1  There  is  not  only  no  mention 
of  any  religious  form  or  any  creed,  but  there  is  no 
place  for  them.  For  Christ's  standard  is  righteous- 
ness, and  righteousness  He  places  in  the  purpose  of 
the  heart.  Therefore,  while  outward  religious  rites 
may  be  profitable,  and  are,  even  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  Gospel,  they  cannot  be  essential ;  and 
while  adherence  to  creeds  may  be  profitable,  it  is  not 
essential,  save  adherence  to  the  simple  belief  in  Jesus 
as  Messiah,  and  the  practical  acceptance  of  what  that 
involves  in  regard  to  God  and  our  neighbor. 

There  is  no  formal  parousia  of  the  Son  of  man  in 
the  Gospel  of  John.  The  term  is  not  found  there. 
In  the  Appendix  to  the   Gospel   there    is    a  reference 

1  In  the  Parables  of  Enoch  the  Messiah  is  thought  of  as  judge,  contrary 
to  the  common  Jewish  view;  but  there  is  no  suggestion  of  the  profound 
truth  that  the  Messiah  is  judge  because  He  is  the  standard  of  life. 


342  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

to  some  coming  of  Jesus,  in  His  words  to  Peter  with 
regard  to  the  beloved  disciple,  "  If  I  will  that  he  tarry 
c.  Messianic  till  /  come,  what  is  that  to  thee"  (Jn.  xxi. 
Ihe  tohin  22) ?  The  disciples  misunderstood  this  word 
Gospel.  0f  jesuS)  for  the  narrative  says,   "This  say- 

ing went  forth  among  the  brethren,  that  that  dis- 
ciple should  not  die "  (Jn.  xxi.  23).  When  the 
Appendix  was  written,  John  was  apparently  dead,  and 
then  the  Christian  brethren  noted  the  fact  that  Jesus 
had  not  made  a  positive  statement  regarding  John, 
but  only  a  conditional  one.  "Jesus  said  not  unto 
him,  that  he  should  not  die ;  but  if  I  will  that  he 
tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ?  "  The  com- 
ing is  not  uncertain,  but  it  is  uncertain  whether 
John  is  to  tarry  on  earth  to  witness  it.  Now  we  have 
seen  that  the  Synoptic  narrative  speaks  of  two  events 
as  a  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  :  one  in  the  immediate 
future,  and  the  other  at  the  end  of  the  age.  It  seems 
impossible  to  associate  the  word  in  Jn.  xxi.  22  with 
the  first  of  these  events.  For  Jesus  had  looked  for- 
ward to  the  old  age  of  Peter  (Jn.  xxi.  18),  and  then 
intimated  that  John  might  tarry  yet  longer  than  Peter. 
But  that  coming  of  Jesus  which  He  anticipated  in  the 
near  future,  and  which  we  find  realized  in  Pentecost 
and  in  the  great  triumphs  of  the  Gospel  in  the  subse- 
quent quarter  of  a  century,  was  certainly  nearer  than 
Peter's   death,    and   therefore    cannot    have   been    the 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     343 

event  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  when  He  spoke  of  John's 
tarrying  till  He  should  come.  If,  then,  the  coming 
of  Jn.  xxi.  22  be  identified  with  cither  of  the  events 
so  designated  in  the  Synoptists,  it  must  be  identified 
with  the  final  parousia.  In  that  case  Jesus  must  have 
thought  \t  possible  that  the  consummation  might  come 
within  perhaps  a  hundred  years.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered, however,  that  this  is  only  a  hypothetical  saying, 
and  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the  fourth  Gospel 
proper,  but  only  to  the  Appendix  which  was  made 
to  that  Gospel  by  unknown  hands. 

The  only  other  passage  in  John  which  comes  into 
consideration  here  is  xiv.  3,  "  If  I  go  and  prepare  a 
place  for  you,  /  come  again  and  will  receive  you  unto 
myself."  It  is  plain  from  the  context  that  this  was 
intended  to  be  a  word  of  comfort  for  the  disciples. 
But  if  the  coming  which  Jesus  had  in  mind  was  at  the 
end  of  the  age,  the  comfort  of  the  saying  would  have 
been  quite  vague  at  the  best.  According  to  the  plain 
teaching  of  the  Synoptists  the  end  was  at  an  indefinite 
remove  from  the  present.  It  seems  impossible  also 
to  suppose  that,  in  Jn.  xiv.  3,  Jesus  referred  to  His 
coming  in  the  Spirit.  For  when  Jesus  came  in  the 
Spirit  at  Pentecost,  He  did  not  receive  the  disciples 
into  the  many  mansions  of  the  Father's  house. 

Since,  then,  the  reception  of  the  disciples  is  into 
heaven,  it    seems  necessary    to    regard   the  coming  of 


344  THE    REVELATION   OF   JESUS 

Jesus  as  a  fact  coincident  with  their  departure  from 
this  earthly  life.  Hence  we  must  apparently  consider 
this  saying  of  Jesus  as  somewhat  in  line  with  His 
word  on  the  cross  to  the  dying  robber,  "  To-day  shalt 
thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise "  (Lk.  xxiii.  43).  At 
the  close  of  this  man's  life  he  was  received  by  Jesus 
into  the  Father's  house.  There  was  a  meeting  between 
Jesus  and  the  spirit  of  the  robber,  and  the  Lord  wel- 
comed him  into  Paradise.  So,  when  Jesus,  about  to 
depart  from  His  disciples,  promised  to  come  again 
and  to  receive  them  into  the  house  of  His  Father, 
where  He  was  to  prepare  a  place  for  them,  we  may 
hold  that  the  essential  thought  of  this  language  is 
that  He  would  meet  them  in  the  hour  of  death  and 
welcome  them  into  the  heavenly  mansions. 

As  the  fourth  Gospel  thus  practically  omits  the 
Synoptic  teaching  of  the  parousia,  so  it  omits  the 
Synoptic  teaching  of  a  final  future  judgment ;  and  as 
the  fourth  Gospel  lays  stress  on  the  thought  of  the 
presence  of  the  Spirit,  who  takes  the  place  of  Jesus, 
so  it  lays  stress  on  the  thought  of  a  present  judgment. 
There  are  but  two  allusions  to  a  future  judgment,  and 
the  incidental  character  of  these  has  already  been 
shown.  Aside  from  these,  the  Messianic  judgment 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  present  judgment— a  judg- 
ment in  life  rather  than  at  death.  This  judgment 
does  not   consist  in  a  formal  word  or  sentence  by  the 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     345 

Messiah.  In  this  sense  of  the  word  judgment,  Jesus 
judged  no  man  (Jn.  viii.  15).  He  came  not  to  judge 
the  world  but  to  save  (Jn.  iii.  17;  xii.  47).  His  judg- 
ment is  simply  the  inevitable  consequence  of  His 
revelation.  He  stands  in  the  midst  of  men  as  the 
Messiah,  and  men  accept  or  reject  Him.  To  accept 
Him  is  life,  to  reject  Him  is  judgment  (Jn.  iii.  18). 
"This  is  the  judgment,  that  the  light  is  come  into 
the  world,  and  men  loved  the  darkness  rather  than 
the  light"  (Jn.  iii.  19).  Therefore  men  judge  them- 
selves as  they  refuse  the  light  of  the  Messiah.  The 
Messiah  does  not  bring  this  light  to  them  to  the  end 
that  they  may  be  judged,  but  with  a  great  desire  that 
they  would  accept  it  and  be  saved  (Jn.  iii.  17;  xii. 
47).  He  comes  to  them  not  as  a  judge,  but  as  a 
saviour.  Yet  He  comes  with  the  final  word  of  God, 
the  perfect  revelation  of  the  Father,  and  therefore 
His  coming  involves  judgment;  but  men  pronounce 
their  own  sentence.  This  judgment  is  final  in  char- 
acter because  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  is  the  final  mes- 
sage of  God.  As  long  as  one  rejects  this  message, 
one  is  judged  (Jn.  iii.  18),  and  the  judgment  can  be 
reversed  only  by  accepting  the  message.  It  is  not 
final  in  the  sense  that  one  who  is  judged,  because  of 
rejecting  Jesus,  cannot  possibly  turn  and  come  to  a 
better  mind. 

Since  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  brings  this  revelation  and 


346  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

is  the  revelation,  He  says  that  all  judgment  is  given 
to  Him  (Jn.  v.  22).  This  judgment  and  the  Messiah- 
ship  are  inseparable.  He  is  judge  because  He  is 
Messiah,  and  He  executes  judgment  through  His 
revelation  of  the  Father,  which  is  the  last  touchstone 
of  hearts.  It  is,  therefore,  plain  here  as  in  the 
Synoptists,  that  Messianic  judgment  presupposes  a 
knowledge  of  the  Messiah,  and  an  opportunity  to 
accept  Him. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  say  that  this  present  judg- 
ment of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  vital  and  final.  He  who 
accepts  Jesus  has  passed  out  of  death  into  life  (Jn.  v. 
24),  and  at  death  is  received  by  the  Lord  into  the 
Father's  house  (Jn.  xiv.  3).  This  present  acceptance 
or  rejection  of  Jesus  is  the  great  crisis  of  the  soul; 
and  if  Jesus  thought  of  a  judgment  at  death,  He 
must  have  thought  of  it,  according  to  this  teaching, 
merely  as  a  recognition  of  the  soul's  estate  in  Christ. 
In  like  manner,  this  present  crisis  involves  the  essen- 
tial judgment  for  the  unrighteous,  and  any  judgment 
at  death  can  be  no  more  than  a  recognition  and  in- 
dorsement of  the  judgment  which  they  have  already 
passed  upon  themselves. 

In  four  of  the  five  passages  which  directly  concern 
the  judgment  at  the  end  of  the  age,  we  find  mention  of 
the  awards  to  righteous  and  unrighteous.  These  awards 
are  suggested  rather  than  described.    They  are  strongly 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     347 

outlined  by  two  or  three  weighty  words,  and  then  are 
dropped.  The  same  is  true  of  the  other  references 
which  we  find  scattered  through  the  Gospels. 

d.  The 

There  is  no  uncertainty  in  the  tone  of  Christ's  issues  of 

1  ,  .  iii  judgment. 

utterances,  but  there  is  a  remarkable  reserve  ;  1.  introduc- 
and  this  appears  the  more  remarkable  when 
we  remember  at  what  length  the  rabbinical  teachers 
dwelt  upon  the  externals  of  the  world  beyond  and 
the  state  of  the  departed.1  There  is  no  passage  in 
which  Jesus  treats  the  Messianic  rewards  and  punish- 
ments for  their  own  sake.  They  are  subordinated  to 
some  thought  of  immediately  practical  importance. 
Jesus  refers  to  the  future,  not  to  satisfy  any  speculative 
interest,  but  solely  to  promote  righteousness. 

It  is  in  line  with  this  fact  that  the  words  of  Jesus 
regarding  the  future  refer  only  to  those  who  have 
known  the  Messiah.  The  allusions  to  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
to  the  Ninevites  and  the  queen  of  the  South,  to  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah,  serve  to  describe  the  fate  of  the  Jews 
who  have  rejected  Jesus.  The  lake  cities  —  Capernaum, 
Chorazin,  and  Bethsaida — are  declared  to  be  worse  than 
the  proverbially  wicked  cities  of  ancient  times,  and 
accordingly  a  darker  future  is  before  them.  The  Nin- 
evites repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah,  and  the 
queen   of  the  South    sought   the  wisdom    of  Solomon, 

1  Comp.  Langen,  Das  Judenthwn  in  Palcesti?ta,  pp.  461-519;  Weber, 
Die  Lehren  dej  Talmuds,  pp.  300-386,         .'...... 


348  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

and  the  example  of  both  condemns  the  contemporaries 
of  Jesus.  The  one  point  with  which  Jesus  is  concerned 
is  the  exceeding  guilt  of  the  Jews  in  rejecting  Him. 
To  state  this  point  strongly  He  compares  His  contem- 
poraries with  the  notoriously  bad  men  of  former  times. 
The  allusions,  therefore,  are  rhetorical  rather  than 
doctrinal,  and  it  remains  true  that  in  the  thought  of 
Jesus  regarding  the  judgment  and  the  hereafter,  only 
those  persons  are  contemplated  who,  on  earth,  have 
known  about  Jesus,  and  who  have  made  "the  great 
refusal "  or  the  great  acceptance.  This  leads  to 
another  remark,  namely,  that  Jesus  always  thinks  of 
the  judgment  of  men  as  accomplished  by  Himself  {e.g. 
Mt.  xiii.  41-42;  xxv.  31).  He  establishes  the  king- 
dom of  God ;  He  also  consummates  it  by  judgment 
and  by  eternal  awards.  The  completion  of  the  work 
is  His  as  truly  as  its  beginning.  The  beginning  is  on 
earth,  the  completion  in  heaven,  but  in  both  there  is 
one  law.  The  Messiah  is  central  throughout  the  entire 
process. 

In  the  references  which  Jesus  makes  to  the  future  of 

the  unrighteous  we  have   three  elements,  namely,  the 

material  symbolism,  the  spiritual  symbolism, 

2.  The 

award  of  the    and  the  matter  of  time.     The  chief  material 

unrighteous.  ,     ,   .      _  ,       .       .  ,  . 

symbol  is  fire ;  the  incidental  ones  are  worms, 
darkness,  and  the  being  ground  to  powder.  The  fire  is 
either  in  a  furnace  (Mt.  xiii.  42,  50)  —  a  figure  which 


CONSUMMATION  OF  THE  MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     349 

may  have  been  suggested  by  the  story  in  Daniel  (Dan. 
hi.  6);  or  it  is  the  fire  of  Gehenna,  a  term  which  Jesus 
used  on  three  or  four  occasions  (Mt.  v.  22,  29-30; 
xxiii.  15;  Mk.  ix.  43-48;  Lk.  xii.  5).  The  word  is 
borrowed  from  the  rabbinical  theology,  but  is  based 
on  the  Old  Testament.  The  valley  of  Hinnom,  on  the 
southwest  of  Jerusalem,  is  supposed  to  have  originated 
the  name,  and  the  historical  use  of  that  valley  is 
supposed  to  have  originated  the  fundamental  concep- 
tion of  Gehenna.1  It  was  a  place  for  the  destruction 
of  that  which  was  unclean.  If,  however,  Isaiah  refers  to 
the  valley  of  Hinnom  in  lxvi.  24,  which  seems  to  be 
taken  for  granted  by  Mark  (Mk.  ix.  47-48),  since  the 
symbolism  of  Isaiah  is  here  used  in  describing  Gehenna, 
then  the  prophet  thought  of  Gehenna  as  the  place 
where  the  wrath  of  God  was  manifested  against  His 
enemies  —  a  place  of  judgment  and  punishment.  In  any 
case  this  is  the  idea  which  is  associated  with  the  word 
in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  For  He  uses  Gehenna  as  the 
antithesis  of  life,  that  life  which  the  righteous  attain; 
or  as  the  antithesis  of  the  kingdom  of  God  into  which 
the  righteous  enter  at  last  (Mk.  ix.  43,  47).  Thus  it 
stands  for  the  place  of  condemnation  and  also  for  the 
award  of  unrighteousness. 

To  the  fire,  which  is  the  characteristic  feature  of  Ge- 
henna, is  once  added  the  detail  of  worms  —  an  emblem 

1  Comp.  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmuds,  p.  327. 


350  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

of  physical  putrefaction  taken  from  Isaiah's  description 
of  God's  judgment  (Mk.  ix.  48).  Outer  darkness  is  once 
used  as  a  symbol  of  the  fate  of  the  unrighteous,  where 
it  is  the  antithesis  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  in  which 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  blessed  (Mt.  viii. 
11-12).  In  two  other  passages  it  symbolizes  judgment, 
but  not  specifically  the  final  judgment  (Mt.  xxii.  13; 
xxv.  30).  This  figure  is  indefinite  and  negative,  and 
owes  its  significance  to  the  inner  light  from  which  the 
darkness  is  separated.  It  is,  therefore,  a  relative  term, 
and  applicable  alike  to  temporal  and  eternal  judgment. 
The  remaining  material  symbol  is  that  of  being  ground 
to  powder,  as  a  small  stone  may  be  crushed  by  a  large 
one  (Lk.  xx.  18).  Jesus  likened  Himself  to  "the  stone 
that  was  rejected  by  the  builders,"  and  said  that  who- 
soever should  fall  upon  this  would  be  broken  into 
pieces ;  but  on  whomsoever  it  should  fall,  it  would  grind 
him  to  powder.  The  stone  would  thus  become  useless 
for  any  building  purposes.  The  obvious  suggestion 
is  that  any  man  on  whom  the  condemnation  of  the 
Messiah  rests,  is  henceforth  of  no  value  for  any  build- 
ing of  God. 

The  essential  thought  of  this  material  symbolism 
of  judgment  which  Jesus  used,  with  the  exception  of 
the  last  symbol,  is  pain.  Thus  the  fire  and  the  outer 
darkness  produce  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth  (Mt. 
xiii.  42,  50),  or  the  flame  torments  (Lk.  xvi.   23).     It 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     351 

seems  probable  also  that  the  worm  was  thought  of  as 
causing  pain  by  reason  of  the  supposed  association 
of  the  departed  spirit  with  its  earthly  body;  but  this 
symbol  is  wholly  subordinate,  and  the  plain  thought 
of  the  passage  as  a  whole  is  that  of  pain. 

The  spiritual  symbolism  of  these  passages  of  judg- 
ment is  more  suggestive  than  the  material.  Under 
this  head  we  may  mention,  first,  the  word  of  Jesus  at 
Caesarea  Philippi,  "  Whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  me 
and  of  my  words  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful  genera- 
tion, the  Son  of  man  also  shall  be  ashamed  of  him, 
when  he  cometh  in  the  glory  of  His  Father  with  the 
holy  angels"  (Mk.  viii.  38).  With  this  belongs  the 
word  of  kindred  warning,  "Whosoever  shall  deny  me 
before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father  who 
is  in  heaven  "  (Mt.  x.  33).  The  inner  feeling  contained 
in  these  passages  expresses  itself  in  the  awful  words, 
"  I  never  knew  you  :  depart  from  me,  ye  workers  of 
iniquity "  (Mt.  vii.  23),  and  "  Depart  from  me,  ye 
cursed"  (Mt.  xxv.  41). 

There  is  yet  another  term  which  Jesus  used  concern- 
ing the  fate  of  the  unrighteous  which  should  be  men- 
tioned in  this  connection.  It  is  the  term  destroy  or 
destruction.  "Wide  is  the  road  which  leads  unto 
destruction,  and  many  are  they  who  are  entering  it " 
(Mt.  vii.  13),  and,  "Fear  Him  who  is  able  to  destroy 
both  soul  and  body  in  Gehenna"  (Mt.  x.  28;  comp.  Mk, 


352  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

xii.  9).  Destruction  is  defined  by  being  set  over  against 
life.  "  Narrow  is  the  road  which  leads  unto  life,  and 
few  are  they  who  are  finding  it."  Thus  destruction  is 
the  antithesis  of  life  ;  and  as  life  here  is  not  mere  exist- 
ence, so  destruction  is  not  mere  non-existence  or  anni- 
hilation. Life  is  something  far  richer  and  better  than 
existence,  and  therefore  destruction  is  something  far 
poorer  and  worse  than   bare  existence. 

The  essential  thought  of  this  spiritual  symbolism  is 
separation  from  God  and  from  Christ,  from  the  holy 
angels  and  the  redeemed.  This  separation  by  judg- 
ment involves  separation  by  choice,  and  the  choice  to 
be  apart  from  God  and  Christ  involves  a  love  of  evil 
which  even  the  grace  of  Jesus  could  not  overcome. 
Herein  appears  the  agreement  between  the  material 
and  the  spiritual  symbolism.  The  material  symbolism 
expresses  the  thought  of  pain,  the  spiritual  symbolism 
that  of  separation  from  God  which  is  made  necessary 
by  the  love  of  sin.  But  a  person  with  an  ineradicable 
love  of  sin,  who  is  given  over  to  himself  by  God,  is 
inevitably  in  a  condition  of  pain.  One  might  say  that 
the  fire  of  Gehenna,  the  undying  worm,  and  the  dark- 
ness of  judgment  are  within  him.  They  are  potentially 
within  him  during  his  earthly  life;  but  when  he  is 
separated  from  all  holy  influences,  and  given  over  to 
himself,  they  are  fully  actualized.  His  state  is  hence- 
forth something  poorer  and  worse  than  existence.     Like 


CONSUMMATION   OF   THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     353 

a  stone  that  is  ground  to   powder,  he  cannot  be  used 
in  building  the  kingdom  of  God. 

The  element  of  time  in  these  passages  of  judgment, 
whether  we  have  reference  to  punishment  or  reward, 
seems  to  be  explicit.  The  thought  of  Jesus  on  this 
point  does  not  depend  upon  the  etymology  of  any 
word,  as  ceonian  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  found  in  the  possible 
inference  from  the  statement  which  He  makes  re- 
garding a  particular  sin,  that  it  will  not  be  forgiven 
either  in  this  age  or  in  that  which  is  to  come,  for  two 
of  the  Gospels  (one  of  these  the  oldest  of  all)  report 
Him  to  have  said,  with  slight  variations,  that  the  sin 
in  question  should  never  be  forgiven ;  but  His  thought 
is  involved  in  the  very  conception  of  the  Messianic 
judgment,  and  it  is  given  also  in  the  antithesis  of  the 
fate  of  the  unrighteous  to  that  of  the  righteous.  It  is 
involved  in  the  conception  of  the  Messianic  judgment, 
for  that  occurs  once  for  all  in  the  history  of  the  soul, 
and  comes  at  the  transition  from  the  material  to  the 
immaterial  sphere.  There  is  no  suggestion  of  two 
Messianic  judgments  for  the  same  individual.  Further, 
the  element  of  time  is  determined  by  the  antithesis 
between  the  fate  of  the  unrighteous  and  that  of  the 
righteous.  Both  destinies  are  qualified  by  the  same 
adjectives  of  time.  Everlasting  fire  is  set  over  against 
everlasting  life  (Mt.  xxv.  41-46).  If  either  is  endless, 
both    must   be.     But    it   is    not    questioned    that   Jesus 


354  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

thought  of  the  children  of  the  everlasting  Father  as  liv- 
ing an  everlasting  life.  This  seems  to  be  involved  in  the 
very  conception  of  personal,  loving  fellowship  with  God. 

Before  leaving  this  point,  reference  should  be  made 
to  Abraham's  words  in  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man 
and  Lazarus,  "  Between  us  and  you  a  great  gulf  has  been 
fixed,  so  that  they  who  wish  to  cross  hence  to  you  cannot, 
neither  do  any  cross  thence  to  us  "  (Lk.  xvi.  26).  This 
parable  was  spoken  to  warn  against  selfish  living,  and 
it  does  so  by  picturing  the  consequences  which  such  a 
life  has  beyond  the  grave.  One  element  in  this  con- 
sequence is  its  unchangeableness.  The  "  gulf "  has 
been  established,  and  it  is  impassable  to  those  on  either 
side.  In  order  to  get  the  full  significance  of  this  state- 
ment, we  need  to  remember  that  the  rich  man  and  Laza- 
rus are  separated  by  this  gulf  at  death.  Consequently 
the  story  involves  the  thought  that  the  issues  of  judg- 
ment are  irrevocable,1  and  that  these  issues  are  experi- 
enced from  the  hour  of  death. 

It   is   worthy    of    remark    that    the   destiny    of    the 

righteous  is   much  more  variously  suggested  by  Jesus 

than  is  that  of   the   unrighteous,   as    though 

3.  The  .  . 

award  of  the    He   dwelt    upon    this    thought  with  satisfac- 

righteous.  . 

tion,    while    He    expressed    the    other    only 
when  necessity  was  laid  upon  Him. 

1  For  earlier  Jewish  thought  on  this  subject,  see  Psalms  of  Solomon  iii. 
13;   xiii.  9;     Wisdom  v.  15;    Enoch  xxvii.  2;    Ixi.  5. 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     355 

In  the  symbolism  which  Jesus  uses  in  regard  to 
the  future  of  the  righteous,  the  deepest  idea  is  that 
of  the  exaltation  and  enrichment  of  the  personal  life. 
The  consummation  of  the  kingdom  involves  the  con- 
summation of  the  individual  life.  This  consummation 
is  expressed  most  frequently  in  the  thought  of  divine 
fellowship.  The  King  says  Come,  to  those  who 
have  manifested  His  spirit  (Mt.  xxv.  34).  The  re- 
deemed are  to  sit  with  Christ  at  His  table  (Lk.  xxii. 
30),  and  drink  new  wine  with  Him  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  (Mk.  xiv.  25),  that  is,  they  are  to  have  free 
and  glad  fellowship  with  Him.  And  this  fellowship 
extends  to  a  participation  in  the  authority  of  the 
Messiah.  When  He  sits  upon  the  throne  of  His 
glory,  the  twelve  apostles  also  shall  sit  upon  thrones 
(Mt.  xix.  28 ;  Lk.  xxii.  30),  judging  the  tribes  of 
Israel.  This  was  not  meant  literally,  for  the  one 
condition  of  sitting  upon  thrones  with  Jesus  was 
folloiving  Him,  and  there  were  more  than  twelve  who 
followed  Him.  The  disciples,  moreover,  did  not  under- 
stand it  literally,  for  John  thinks  of  every  one  who 
overcomes  in  the  conflict  of  life  as  sitting  with  Christ 
on  His  throne  (Rev.  hi.  21).  The  figure  meant  simply 
that  those  who  had  shared  the  toil  of  Jesus  should 
also  share  his  triumph.  As  God  exalted  Jesus  to  a 
glorious  throne,  so  Jesus  promises  to  exalt  His  follow- 
ers to  a  seat  beside  Himself. 


356  THE  REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

Again,  it  was  divine  fellowship  that  Jesus  promised 
to  the  dying  robber,  as  well  as  Paradise  (Lk.  xxiii.  43). 
It  was  fellowship  with  God  which  Jesus  promised  to 
the  pure  in  heart  (Mt.  v.  8).  This  word  has  doubt- 
less a  partial  fulfilment  on  earth,  as  have  various 
promises  of  reward  in  the  words  of  Jesus  {e.g.  Mt.  v. 
3>  5,  6,  7,  9;  x.  39-42),  but  its  complete  realization 
belongs  to  heaven. 

Now  the  significance  which  Jesus  attached  to  divine 
fellowship  in  the  hereafter  was  probably  of  a  like  sort 
with  that  which  He  attached  to  it  for  this  present  life. 
If  it  means  development  toward  the  ideal  of  God  here, 
it  will  mean  further  development  toward  the  ideal 
there.  If  it  brings  peace  and  joy  here,  so  will  it 
there. 

The  exaltation  and  enrichment  of  personal  life  is 
expressed  also  in  the  thought  of  the  glory  and  honor 
which  are  bestowed  upon  the  redeemed  spirit.  The 
righteous  shall  shine  as  the  sun  (Mt.  xiii.  43),  the 
strongest  figure  of  unwasting  glory  which  is  fur- 
nished by  the  natural  world.  Their  names  are  writ- 
ten in  heaven  (Lk.  x.  20),  and  Christ  will  confess 
them  as  the  names  of  His  faithful  followers  before 
God  and  the  angels  (Lk.  xii.  8 ;  Mt.  x.  32).  This 
recognition  must  be  an  everlasting  stimulus  to  the 
divine  life.  In  like  manner  must  we  judge  of  the 
fellowship    with    saints    and    angels.      The    society  of 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S    KINGDOM     357 

patriarchs  and  prophets  and  of  all  those  to  whom 
the  King  shall  say,  "  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father," 
must  have  the  noblest  meaning  which  the  society  of 
the  good  has  upon  the  earth,  namely,  to  stimulate  the 
best  development  of  the  soul  (Mt.  viii.  11-12;  Lk. 
xiii.  28 ;   Mt.  xxv.   34). 

Finally,  the  exaltation  and  enrichment  of  the  per- 
sonal life  seems  to  be  the  chief  thought  in  the  prom- 
ise of  life  eternal.  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  eternal 
life  is  always  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  future 
world  (Mt.  xxv.  46;  xix.  29;  Mk.  x.  30;  Lk.  xvi.  9; 
xviii.  30;  Mk.  ix.  43-48),  and  yet  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  are  thought  of  as  having  true  life  here  and 
now,  life  that  is  divine  and  indestructible,  because  they 
have  true  righteousness.  Therefore,  from  the  stand- 
point of  these  Gospels,  the  life  eternal  which  is  be- 
stowed upon  the  righteous  at  the  beginning  of  the 
coming  age  and  which  is  the  reward  for  faithfulness 
in  the  earthly  life,  must  be  thought  of  as  a  higher 
and  more  perfect  state  of  the  personal  life.  The 
term,  of  course,  involves  endless  existence,  but  endless 
existence  is  certainly  not  the  crown  of  the  promise. 
As  a  great  reward  (Mt.  v.  12)  and  a  treasure  in 
heaven  (Mt.  vi.  20;  Mk.  x.  21),  as  the  antithesis 
of  Gehenna  (Mk.  ix.  43-48)  and  of  everlasting  pun- 
ishment (Mt.  xxv.  46),  eternal  life  is  something 
infinitely  richer  than    eternal    existence.       It  is  better 


358  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

even  than  the  redeemed  earthly  life,  however  rich  that 
may  become  through  the  influence  of  the  Gospel ;  for 
it  is  presented  as  a  divine  rezvard,  and  as  something 
greater  than  the  hundred-fold  reward  which  is  prom- 
ised to  the  faithful  in  this  earthly  life  (Mk.  x.  30). 
Thus  the  life  eternal  into  which  the  righteous  go 
away  after  the  Messianic  judgment  (Mt.  xxv.  46), 
which  stands  as  a  synonym  of  the  kingdom  prepared 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world  (Mt.  xxv.  34 ;  Lk. 
xxii.  29),  must  be  a  divine  enlargement  and  enrich- 
ment of  the  personal  life,  such  as  is  involved  in  the 
intimate  fellowship  of  the  redeemed  with  Christ  and 
the  Father,  and  in  their  fellowship  with  the  good  of 
all  ages. 

It  is  the  aim  of  the  fourth  Gospel  to  show  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus  (Jn.  xx.  31),  in  order  that  men  may  ac- 
cept Him  ;  and  it  keeps  so  closely  to  this  aim 

4.  The 

johannean  that  it  has  little  to  say  of  the  life  of  the  re- 
deemed beyond  the  grave.  Its  conception  of 
Christ  and  of  the  life  which  He  gives  is  so  exalted  that 
it  seems  to  bring  into  the  present  much  of  the  glory  and 
felicity  of  heaven.  Thus,  the  disciples,  because  united 
to  Christ,  are,  equally  with  Him,  the  object  of  the 
Father's  love  (Jn.  xvii.  23,  etc.);  they  are  in  a  certain 
degree  one,  as  Jesus  and  the  Father  are  one  (e.g.  Jn. 
xvii.  11,  20);  they  can  pray  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
and    be  as    sure    of    the  Father's    response    as    Christ 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S   KINGDOM     359 

Himself  was  (Jn.  xiv.  13-14;  xv.  16;  xvi.  23,  24,  26); 
they  have  a  joy  like  that  of  Jesus,  or  may  have  (Jn. 
xv.  n;  xvii.  13);  and  they  are  made  glorious  in 
character.  For  Jesus  says  that  He  is  glorified  in  the 
disciples,  because  they  have  accepted  Him  as  the 
Messiah,  and  are  manifesting  His  spirit  (Jn.  xvii.  10); 
and  that  the  Father  also  is  glorified  by  their  fruitful- 
ness,  and  by  their  becoming  more  and  more  perfect 
disciples  of  Jesus  (Jn.  xv.  8).  But  if  Jesus  and  the 
Father  are  glorified  in  the  disciples,  then  surely  the 
character  of  the  disciples  is  glorious.  If  the  disciples, 
here  and  now,  glorify  Jesus  and  the  Father,  then  we 
may  surely  say  that  they  share  in  the  glory  of  the 
Father  and  of  Jesus.  Thus  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
more  decidedly  than  in  the  Synoptists,  the  believer, 
because  of  his  relation  to  the  Messiah,  is  thought  of 
as  possessing  at  present  much  of  the  blessedness  and 
glory  of  heaven.  The  stress  falls  upon  the  present 
enrichment  of  life  rather  than  upon  its  enrichment 
in  the  future. 

There  are,  however,  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  some 
glimpses  of  the  future  life,  and  they  present  its 
glory  as  the  culmination  of  the  glory  of  the  present 
Christian  state.  At  His  departure  from  His  dis- 
ciples Jesus  assured  them  that  He  was  going  away 
to  prepare  a  place  for  them,  and  that  after  He  had 
come    and    received    them    to     Himself,    they    would 


360  THE   REVELATION   OF  JESUS 

be  together,  the  Master  and  His  disciples  (Jn.  xiv. 
2-3).  And  since  they  were  to  be  with  Jesus,  they 
would  be  with  the  Father,  for  He  said  that  He  was 
going  to  the  Father  (Jn.  xiv.  12,  28).  What  He 
meant  by  the  preparation  of  a  place  for  them  is  left 
undefined.  It  may  be  that  the  only  thought  intended 
was  that  He  should  continue  to  be  active  in  their 
behalf,  and  that  this  activity  would  be  especially 
directed  toward  the  end  of  making  their  reunion 
with  Him  a  joyous  one.  He  wishes  to  assure  His 
disciples  that  He  will  not  forget  them,  when  absent, 
but  will  still  bear  them  in  His  heart  and  still  work 
for  their  interest.  But  in  any  case,  the  vital  thought 
of  the  passage  is  that  the  disciples  will  be  with  the 
Master.  Home  consists  in  the  personal  presence  and 
love  of  friends,  not  in  any  circumstances  of  place 
and  adornment.  In  like  manner,  in  the  parting 
prayer  of  Jesus,  His  request  is  that  His  disciples 
may  be  with  Him  and  behold  His  glory  (Jn.  xvii. 
24).  He  is  perfectly  confident  that  this  will  be  the 
case,  as  is  indicated  in  the  very  form  of  the  ex- 
pression, "  I  will  that,  where  I  am,  they  also  may 
be  with  me."  They  have  been  united  to  Him  in  the 
past  in  the  union  of  an  eternal  life,  and  He  is  sure 
that  they  will  be  with  Him  in  the  unseen  world. 
This  glory  of  His  which  the  disciples  are  to  behold 
is,  as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  the  glory  of  the    com- 


CONSUMMATION   OF  THE   MESSIAH'S   KINGDOM     36 1 

pleted  Messianic  work.  It  is  doubtless  a  glory  com- 
mensurate with  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  toils  of 
all  His  saints. 

This  thought  of  glorious  fellowship  with  Christ 
necessarily  involves  a  glorious  exaltation  and  enrich- 
ment of  the  individual  life,  which  we  have  seen  to 
be  the  central  thought  of  Jesus  regarding  the  future 
state,  as  reported  by  the  earlier  evangelists. 


INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS 


Angels  in  Jewish  doctrine,  10. 
Angels,  trust  in,  114-115. 
Apostles,  their  position  and  authority, 
149-151. 

Baptism,  127-130. 

Believing  in  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 

82-88,  204-206. 
Birth  from  above,  84-87. 
Brotherhood,  132  135. 

Ceremonial   cleansing,    100-102,   126- 

127. 
Ceremonies,  124-131. 
Church,  use  of  the  word  in  Matthew, 

51-52. 
Church,  the  foundation  of,  149. 
Commandment,  the  new,  141-144. 
Communion  with  God,  1 19-124. 
Consciousness  of  Jesus,  167-228. 
Covenant,  the  new,  269-276. 

Death,  285-286. 

Death  of  Jesus,  246-283. 

the  thought  gradually  unfolded,  246- 

252.* 
the  source  of  Jesus'  thought,  252- 

256. 
its  meaning,  256-283. 
Demons.     See  Satan. 
Divorce.    See  Marriage. 

Ethics  of  Jesus  wholly  religious,  131. 

Faith  and  physical  healing,  48. 
Faith,  the  practical  character  of,  73. 
Family,  138-141. 
Fasting,  97-98,  126. 


Father — use   of  the   name   by   Jesus, 

15-16,  25-27. 
Fatherhood  of  God  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 3-6. 

in  the  experience  of  Jesus,  14-15. 

essential,  17-22. 

taught  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  20-22. 

in  the  fourth  Gospel,  25-29. 
Fear  of  God,  112. 
Forgiveness  of  sin,  69-72. 
Forgiveness,  duty  of,  137-138. 


Gehenna,  42,  349-351. 

God,  the  fundamental  conception  in  the 

teaching  of  Jesus,  1-3. 
God,  His  fatherhood  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 3-6. 
Jewish  conception  of,  6-13. 
basis  of  Jesus'  conception  of,  13-15. 
attributes  of,  24. 
Good,  the  supreme,  77-78. 
Greek  thought  and  the  conception  of 
God,  6-8. 


Heaven,  292-293,  334,  359~36l« 
Humanity  of  Jesus,  167-174,  193-197. 
Humility,  117-118. 

Humility,   the    kingdom    received    in 
74-77- 


Judge  of  men,  176-177. 

Judgment  in  the  fourth   Gospel,  342- 

346. 
Judgment,  the  time  of,  331-336. 

the  standard  of,  336-441. 

the  issues  of,  346-361. 

363 


;64 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


Kingdom    of  heaven    or   kingdom   of 

God,  32-33. 
Kingdom  of  heaven,  in  the  preaching 
of  Jesus,  1,  31-32. 

a  many-sided  term,  32-34. 

as  a  divine  rule,  35-37,  44-45. 

as  a  company  of  people,  37-39. 

in   the   sense  of  special  privileges, 
39-41- 

as  a  place,  41-43. 

realized  from  within,  45-50. 

in  the  fourth  Gospel,  55-56. 

in  the  teaching  of  the  scribes,  55-61. 

consummated,  284-361. 

reception  of,  72-82. 

means  of  extending,  151-155. 

its  ultimate  extent,  162-166. 

organization  of,  145-151. 
Knowledge  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  88-90. 

of  God  acquired  by  Jesus,  240-242. 

Law,  its  place  in  Old  Testament  litera- 
ture and  life,  5-6. 

life  of  Jesus  in  relation  to,  97-102. 

moral     and      ceremonial,     distin- 
guished, 102-103. 

fulfilled    by    Jesus,    104-106,    175- 
176. 
Life,  entrance  into,  62-92. 

eternal,  56,  357-358. 

consummation  of,  355-361. 

spirit  of,  109-110. 
Limitations  of  Jesus,  169-174. 
Lord's  prayer,  122. 

supper,  42-43,  130-131,  266-276. 
Love  of  God,  115-116. 

of  man,  135-136. 

Man  apart  from  God,  76-77. 

Marriage,  139-141. 

Merit,  113-114. 

Messiahship,   consciousness    of,    179- 
193,  202-228. 

Messianic      consciousness      not     de- 
veloped, 191-193. 
purpose,  229-233. 

Ministry  of  Jesus  to  the  physical  man, 
48. 


Miracles  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
46-49. 
the  spiritual  effect  of,  47-48. 

National  restoration  of  the  Jews,  50-55. 
Neighbor,  134-135. 

Opposition  to  Christ,  156-162. 
Organization  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
M5-i5i- 

Paradise.     See  Heaven. 
Parousia,  311-331. 

the  data  of,  311-314. 

use  of  the  term,  314-320. 

in   the   first    Christian    generation, 
320-326. 

at  the  end  of  the  age,  327-331. 

Rabbinism  and  the  conception  of  God, 

8-13. 
Repentance  a  fundamental   necessity, 
62-64. 

the  motive  to,  64-66. 

the  nature  of,  66-67. 

the  possibility  of,  67-69. 

and  pardon,  69-72. 
Resurrection,  285-296. 

of  Jesus,  285-290. 

of  good  and  bad,  290-293. 

according    to    the    fourth    Gospel, 
293-296. 
Righteous   man   in   relation    to    God, 
109-131. 

man  in  relation  to  man,  131-144. 
Righteousness,  92-109. 

a  comprehensive  term,  92-94. 

the  spirituality  of,  94-97. 
Rites.     See  Ceremonies. 

Sabbath  observance,  98-100,  126-127. 
Satan  and  demons,  114-115,  158-162. 
Second  coming  of  Jesus.      See  Par- 
ousia. 
Service,  136-137. 
Sin  that  hath  not  forgiveness,  11 9. 
Sincerity,  118-119. 
Son  of  God.     See  Messiahship. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


365 


Son  of  man.    See  Messiahship. 

Sonship  to  God  ethical,  22-23,  28-29. 
Spirit,  the  Holy,  296-311. 

in  the  Synoptists,  296-301. 

in  John,  301-311. 
State,  the,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  45,  1 
49-50,  52-54,  138-141. 


Trust  in  God,  110-115. 

Truth  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  106-109. 


Union    of  Jesus  with  God, 
197-201. 


174-179. 


Teaching  as   a  part   of  the   work 
Jesus,  233-245. 
and  miracles,  233-235,  241.-245. 
Tolerance,  137. 


of 


Wealth,  78-81. 

Witnessing  for  Jesus,  151-155. 

Woman,  her  equality  with  man,  140- 

141. 
Worship  of  Jesus,  225-228. 


INDEX   OF    PASSAGES    FROM    THE 
GOSPELS 


MATTHEW 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

V. 

45 

25 

I.     21 

3OO  1 

46-47. 48 

135.   136 

III.   5 

32 

48 

23 

ii 

86 

VI. 

1.  4.  6.  18 

94 

12 

65 

i-33 

93 

16-17 

179 

2.  5.  16 

117 

IV.    i-ii 

161 

3.  6.  17.  18.  22. 

23.24 

118 

4.  7-IO 

168 

3.  4.  6.  16.  17 

96 

IO 

190 

5-  6.  7-  8 

120 

17 

3i.  35.  64 

8.32 

24 

23 

234 

9 

16,  24, 

122,  300 

V.   3 

74 

10 

34.  35 

3-  5-  6.  7-  9 

356 

11 

17.25 

3-8 

17 

12 

178 

3-  10 

39 

13 

158 

4 

65 

16-18 

126 

8 

24, 118,356 

19-21 

80 

10-12 

156 

20 

357 

12 

357 

24 

190 

13-  14 

145 

25-34 

77 

13-16 

164 

26.  30 

25 

14 

154 

26.  28 

in 

16 

118 

3o-34 

113 

17              33. 

35. 

104, 

175.  230,  235 

32 

no 

17-19 

240 

32-33 

112 

18.  33-37 

105 

33 

35 

19 

38 

VII 

3 

133 

20 

34. 

64.  76-  93.  94 

6-12 

135 

21-22.  27.  28 

96,  104 

7-1 1 

121 

22 

133 

11 

17 

22.  29-30 

349 

12 

136 

35 

16 

13-14 

33.82 

38.43 

104 

13-23 

35i 

39 

154 

14 

232 

43-44 

134 

15 

157 

44-45 

22 

3< 

>7 

15.22 

119 

368 


INDEX   OF   PASSAGES   FROM   THE  GOSPELS 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

VII.  21 

41 

XII. 

38 

234 

21.  21- 

23. 

24 

73 

38-40 

286 

24 

72 

272 

38-41 

247 

VIII.  8 

74 

39-40 

248,  289 

II 

42 

40 

288 

11-12 

350.  35 

41-42 

63 

13 

21 

43 

92 

19 

234 

50 

132 

20 

82 

XIII. 

8.  24-30 

157 

21-22 

237 

24-30. 

47-50 

34.37 

IX.  22.  28 

48 

33 

I64.  317 

28 

170 

205 

37 

187,  23O 

38 

16 

37-43- 

47-50 

158 

X.  5 

20 

39 

115 

14 

136 

41-42.  50 

3^8 

16.  26. 

23 

155 

42.50 

350 

17-23 

157 

43 

42,  356 

19-20. 

25- 

28 

112 

44-46 

77 

20 

297 

XIV. 

33 

191 

21-22 

263 

XV. 

13 

IOI 

22 

163 

XVI. 

16 

182 

23 

312 

313. 

314 

316 

18 

51,  146,  190 

25-  34- 

35-36 

156 

19 

153 

27.32 

153 

20 

148 

28.33 

3Si 

21 

250,  288 

29.  30 

24 

23 

160 

30 

17 

in 

24-25 

237 

32-33 

176,  190,  338 

24-26 

338 

32.  39-42 

356 

25-26. 

27-28 

327 

38 

249 

27 

115 

312,  319,  338 

40 

265 

28 

318,  319,  323 

XL  3 

184 

XVII. 

4 

190 

11 

38,72 

10-13 

186 

19 

97 

12 

253 

20-24 

63 

,66 

235 

22-23 

250 

25 

25.  68,  74 

in, 

168 

265 

24.  24- 

27 

102 

25-27 

16 

,  20 

236 

XVIII. 

3 

75 

27 

1,  25,  90 

113. 

153 

237 

6 

176 

28 

6= 

.71 

231 

10 

115 

28-29 

190 

17 

5i 

28-30 

236 

19-20 

121 

29 

118 

20 

299 

XII.  6.41.42 

189 

22 

71 

20 

65 

23-35 

138 

23 

184 

XIX. 

3-12 

104 

28 

171 

8.9 

139 

3^32 

7i 

23 

36 

INDEX   OF    PASSAGES   FROM   THE  GOSPELS 


369 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

XIX. 

26 
28 
29 

65 

355 
357 

XXV. 

14-30 

30 

31 

326,  337 

350 
•  187,190,318,348 

XX. 

18-19 

21 
22 

28 

250 

59 
261 
262 

31.34 

31-46 

34 

33 
96,  132,  312,  314, 
328,  329,  330, 338 

25.  221,  255,  257,  358 

XXI. 

31 

36,  64,  76,  95 

37 

92,  I76 

43 

34 

,4° 

.165 

40 

154.  3°0 

XXII. 

1-14 

7 
13 

153 
66 

35° 

4i 

41-46 

46 

351 

353 

232,  357-  358 

14 

162 

XXVI 

6 

183 

15-22 

141 

26 

266 

23-33 

291 

28 

270,  274 

30 

"5 

29 

43 

31-34 

293 

29-64  • 

312 

36-40 

116 

32 

288 

37-40 

17 

,  240 

39.42 

16 

XXIII. 

1-9 

3 

4 

5 

8-9 

22 
102 
125 
119 
133 

53 

53-54 
55 
63-64 

64 

171 
254 
234 
181 
321 

8-9.  23.  2f 

117 

XXVIII 

16 

288 

8-IO 

136 

18 

301 

9 

16 

19 

20,  25,  127,  128,  130, 

12 

75 

145.  165 

15 

349 

20 

190,  297,  298 

15.  23.  27. 

29.37 

95 

23 

25 

103 
11 

MARK 

XXIV. 

3 

3.  8.  29-3C 

3-3° 
3-  30-  3i 
12.30 

» 

312 
316 
329 
328 
163 

I 

8 

IO-II 
!5 

20 

86 

179.  207 

31,  32,  35,  62,  63, 

64.  153.  233 

79 

27-  37-39- 

42.44 

315 

21 

234 

27-  37-41. 

42-44.  45-47 

326 

2I.38 

233 

36 

115 

,  169 

22 

192 

37-42.  44 

312 

24 

184 

37-41 

3i8 

24-34 

182 

40.  41.  45. 

48-51 

332 

26 

251 

44-51 

337 

34 

191 

XXV. 

1 

43 

35 

123,  168 

I-I3 

315. 

326, 

332,  337 

44 

102 

14 

332 

45 

47 

2  B 

370 


INDEX   OF   PASSAGES   FROM   THE   GOSPELS 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

"■  5 

265 

VIII. 

31-32 

246 

7 

253 

.  255 

34-35 

237,  249,  263 

IO 

185,  189 

,  I92 

35-  38 

I76 

10.  20 

32 

36 

137 

14 

237 

38 

73,  312,  318,  322,  327, 

17 

24,  62,  6.4 

,  230 

338, 351 

18 

97 

IX 

1 

316,  318 

20 

24^ 

.257 

2-35 

I48 

23 

98 

5 

I90 

23-28.  27 

99 

9-12 

257 

III.  1-6 

99 

11-12 

186 

6 

255 

12 

254 

11 

182 

21 

I7O 

12 

191 

3i 

25O,  257,  288 

14 

237 

36-37 

75 

20-22.  28-30 

119 

37 

299 

27 

• 

161 

38-41.  42 

50           137 

28-30 

71 

42 

73 

30 

247 

43-48 

357 

35 

132 

43-48.  47 

349 

,  IV.  1-20 

76 

47 

42 

7 

119 

48 

35° 

11 

36 

X 

1 

234 

11-12 

68 

2-12 

104 

14 

243 

5-9-n 

139 

18-19 

81 

J5 

74 

30-32 

164 

18 

*7.  173 

33 

251 

20 

95 

38 

190 

21 

357 

38-40 

178 

21.  17-31 

78 

V.  30 

170 

28 

237 

36 

113 

3° 

232,  357.  358 

39 

285 

33-34 

250,  257 

40 

25 

192 

34 

288 

VI.  3 

74 

35 

137 

6 

234 

37 

59 

12 

63 

38 

261 

3° 

313 

40 

171 

38 

170 

43-45 

154 

4i 

168 

45   142 

165, 231, 262, 263, 263 

VII.  1-23 

100 

117 

5i 

190 

26 

21 

XI. 

10 

57 

27 

20 

13-14 

170 

VIII.  6 

168 

XII. 

6-8 

254.  258 

23 

170 

9 

352 

29 

182 

13-17 

53.  141 

3i      187. 

190,  250,  257, 

288 

18-27 

291 

INDEX   OF   PASSAGES   FROM   THE   GOSPELS 


371 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

LUKE 

XII.   25.26 

293 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

27 

292 

II.  4O.52 

242 

28-30 

Il6 

49 

14,  I74,  229 

28-34 

94,  104 

52 

175 

30 

17 

III.  16 

86 

30-31 

240 

21-22 

179 

31 

134 

IV.    19 

230 

34 

36.77 

4i 

182 

39 

117 

V.   32 

62,  230 

40 

95 

VI.  12 

123,  168 

XIII.   7-8 

317 

20-21. 

24-25 

80 

8.  24-26 

316 

26 

156 

9-13.  22-23 

157 

VII.   34 

65 

11 

151,  297 

36-50 

95 

13 

162 

VIII.   2-3 

47.79 

24-33 

312 

IX.  22 

20,  90,  113,  288 

26-27 

328 

22.  43- 

-44 

25O 

30.50 

329 

23 

78 

32 

25 

169, 316 

26 

322,  327,  338 

33 

315 

27 

318,  332 

33-37 

325 

332,  337 

28 

168 

38.  43-  49 

337 

30-3I 

252,  257 

XIV.   8.  21 

258 

48 

75 

9 

190 

60 

76 

12 

102 

X.   1 

150 

21 

187,  254 

6 

157 

22 

266 

6.  38-42 

77 

22-23.  35-  36.  39 

168 

18 

158,  162 

22-24 

87 

19 

155 

22-25 

130 

20 

356 

24 

270 

20-42 

272 

25 

43-  355 

21 

68 

27 

254 

22 

236 

27-28 

289,  290 

29-37 

134 

28 

288 

42 

69,  231 

33 

148 

XI.    1 

122,  168 

33-34-  36 

178 

5-8 

121 

36 

25. 

169,  173 

13 

17 

61-62 

181, 

186,  187 

20 

171 

62               192, 312 

316,  318,  321 

29-30 

286 

XV.   32 

184 

29-32 

247 

34 

15. 

168, 178 

XII.  5 

349 

40-41 

79 

8 

356 

43 

56 

8-9 

73 

XVI.  7 

288 

10 

7i 

9-20 

49 

12 

297 

13-15- 

16-21.  ^ 

80 

372 


INDEX    OF   PASSAGES  FROM   THE   GOSPELS 


CHAPTER 


XII. 


XIII. 


XIV. 


XV. 


XVI. 


XVII. 


37-  43-  45-46 

39.  40.  41-46 

40 

49-5° 

3-5 

7 

10-17 

23-24 

24 

26 

26-27 

28 

29 

3i 

32 

33 

34 

1-6 

12-14 

14 
26 
26.33 

7 

7.  10 
10 
11-32 

17 
18.  21 

19 
20 

I-I3 

9 
14 

14-  19-31 
15 

19-31 
22 


26 


23 
25 
26 
10 

14 

16 

18 

20 

20-21 

21 


PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

332 

XVII 

22.  24.  26-37 

326 

326 

26 

312 

312,315 

26-27.  28-30 

315 

26l 

26-37 

318 

64,    I76 

34-35 

332 

66 

XVIII. 

1-8 

121 

99 

8 

163, 312 

163 

9-14 

74- 117 

82 

11-13 

16 

234 

12 

96,  113 

73 

13 

63 

34-  357 

14 

75-95 

42 

30 

357 

257 

31-33 

250 

259 

4i 

190 

258 

XIX. 

8-9 

79 

65,69 

10 

76 

99 

11 

57 

135 

11.  15 

332 

291 

11-27 

313.  326,  337 

80 

XX. 

18 

35o 

78 

20-26 

141 

64-95 

27-38 

291 

63-65 

XXI. 

IS 

297 

115 

25 

312 

17,70 

27 

328 

66 

28 

319 

67 

34-36 

326 

75 

XXII. 

15-37 

258 

65 

19 

266,  267 

79 

20 

270 

357 

29 

358 

118 

29-30 

42 

80 

30 

355 

117 

3i 

158 

135 

32 

132 

115.  292 

37 

254 

42,  35° 

66-70 

181 

292 

67.70 

•  183 

354 

69 

321 

118 

XXIII. 

34-46 

16,  168 

102 

40-43 

71 

48 

42-43 

293 

21 

43                     178 

334.  344,  356 

36,  57 

XXIV. 

7 

185 

44 

10 

47 

34 

26 

187 

INDEX   OF   PASSAGES   FROM  THE   GOSPELS 


373 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

XXIV.  26.46 

26l 

V.  5 

46 

33.  48-49 

I50 

5-20.  ] 

8.  19-30 

195 

46 

258,  287,  289 

17 

26,  29 

47 

64 

18 

199 

49 

296,  298 

301 

19-20 

88 

19.30 

197 

JOHN 

20 
21.  24. 

25 

238, 

241,  242 
243 

I.  i-5 

IO 

21.  22. 

23-  25- 

26.  27.  28-29 

295 

17 

IOS 

22.  24 

346 

18 

16 

23.  40. 

43 

44 

84 

29 

256 

24.  36.  38 

206 

34-49 

203 

24-  43-44 

83 

38.49 

234 

26 

232 

II.  13 

30 

26.  30 

239 

16 

26 

27.30 

194 

19.  21 

277 

30 

241 

III.  2 

3° 

.  209 

34 

231 

3-5 

55 

39 

108 

3-  5-  6. 

7.8 

84 

39-4° 

240 

5-8 

301 

40 

165,  231 

6 

86 

VI.  15 

59 

12-13. 

14 

240 

26 

244 

13 

209 

210 

238 

27 

207 

14 

204 

277 

27.  32. 

46 

26 

15 

231 

27.  48. 

51. 

54- 

56-57 

232 

15-16 

83 

29 

206 

16 

92 

29.  44. 

51- 

-58 

86 

16.35 

16,28 

32 

108 

17 

345 

33 

231 

18 

309 

345 

33-  38. 

50-5I 

58 

209 

19 

165 

345 

35-37 

84 

21 

89,91 

107,  308 

37-  44- 

45 

9i 

22-IV. 

3 

3i 

38 

194 

IV.  6.22 

194 

39.  40.  44. 

54 

294 

9 

135 

39-44- 

65 

90 

10-34 

28 

40 

199 

14 

232 

45 

240 

21-23 

20 

46 

239 

24 

199 

47 

83 

25.26 

205 

51-63 

281 

26 

204 

53 

204 

27 

140 

57 

245 

31 

234 

62 

213 

34 

197 

62.63 

212 

35 

30 

63 

243 

48 

244 

66 

147 

374 


INDEX   OF   PASSAGES   FROM  THE   GOSPELS 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

VI.  7° 

I48 

XI. 

35-42 

194 

VII.  17.  18 

I06 

42 

195.  197 

17.  23 

89 

XII. 

6 

I46 

28 

206 

20-24 

28 

37-38 

84 

23 

260,  279 

VIII.  12 

245 

23.  28. 

32 

28,  204,  220 

12.  26. 

38 

243 

24-25 

28l 

12.  31- 

33 

23I 

24.32 

166 

15 

345 

25 

232 

16 

240 

27 

197 

16-18. 

33 

241 

27.  28. 

32 

279 

19.  32. 

34- 

47 

89 

30 

195 

23 

209 

3i 

l6l,  162,  165,  3IO 

24 

205,  208 

32 

264 

27 

16 

35 

243 

28 

204, 

220,  241,  278,  310 

44 

83 

28.38 

239 

45 

I99 

28.  42 

28 

47 

231.  345 

29 

201 

48 

294.  295 

29.40 

194 

49-50 

241 

29-55 

197 

50 

88 

32 

107 

XIII. 

1.  14.  15.  34 

142 

37.  39-40. 

58 

214 

3 

16 

42 

206,  208 

10 

282 

44 

160 

18 

240 

47 

308 

XIV. 

1 

206 

56 

215 

2-3.  IS 

.28 

360 

58 

216 

3 

343-  346 

IX.  5 

243 

6 

107 

108 ,  243,  245.  305 

35-38 

83,  204 

7.  10 

88 

38 

225,  227 

9 

199 

X.   10 

231 

10 

241 

11-18 

279 

13-14 

359 

17 

201 

15-16. 

17 

302 

29 

90,  196 

16.  17 

304 

30-  33 

38 

199 

16.  18. 

21 

303 

33 

195 

23 

28 

33-36 

202 

26 

245.  305.  3o6,  307 

34-35 

240 

28 

196 

35-36 

227 

30 

161,  165 

36 

204,  207 

XV 

.  1 

108 

XI.  4 

202,  203 

3 

282 

4.40 

244 

4 

232 

11 

285 

4-5-9 

307 

24.  25 

26 

294 

8.  11. 

16 

359 

25 

231,232,245 

10 

198,  201 

27 

203 

12 

142 

INDEX   OF   PASSAGES   FROM  THE  GOSPELS 


375 


;hapter 

PAGIi 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

XV.  13 

279 

XVII. 

4-7 

-8. 

10. 

11 

15. 

13      307 

15 

88,  243,  306 

5 

216 

19.  20 

165 

6.  £ 

.  17.  22 

243 

22.  24 

200 

S 

203,  208,  24I 

26 

245.  303-  305 

8.  10 

283 

XVI.  1.2 

165 

8.  11. 

[2. 

25 

239 

3 

88,89 

10. 

13 

359 

7 

303 

10. 

22 

221 

7-8.  12-13 

308 

11. 

20. 

23 

358 

8 

106,  t66,  305 

11. 

21. 

23 

200 

8-10 

198 

11. 

23- 

-5 

29 

8-11 

309 

14. 

16 

209 

9 

206 

18 

152,  206 

10 

212 

21. 

23 

166 

11 

161,  165,  310 

23 

232,  259 

12-13. 14 

306 

24 

360 

13 

3°4.  305.  3°6 

25 

204 

I4-I5 

3°5 

26 

300 

23.  24.  26 

359 

XVIII. 

22- 

23 

155 

27.  28 

208 

25 

106 

33 

162 

36 

55.209 

XVII.  1.  4.  5.  10.  22.  24 

217 

37 

59.9- 

106,  107,  231, 

i-5  24 

219 

238,  243,  308 

2.  4.  6.  7.  8. 10. 14. 

22.26    218 

XIX. 

17 

78 

2.  6.  9.  24 

90 

XX. 

17 

26,  194 

3-5-6 

231 

21 

206 

3.  6.  17.  26 

89 

23 

149 

3.  6.  S.  26 

345 

28 

225 

3-  8.  25 

88 

29 

83,  206,  226 

3-  13 

194 

31 

193. 

203 

,  228,  280,  358 

3-25 

108 

XXI. 

15- 

18 

149 

4 

198 

18. 

22. 

23 

342 

4.  6.  11.  17.  20 

306 

22 

343 

The   Student's   Life   of  Jesus 


BY 


GEORGE   H.    GILBERT,   Ph.D.,  D.D. 

Iowa  Professor  of  New   Testament  Literature  and  hiterprctation  in 
Chicago   Theological  Seminary 


Cloth.     $1.25  net 


"  Admirable  in  arrangement,  concise  in  form,  with  abundant  indexing, 
this  modest  work  speaks  most  eloquently  to  every  one  who  would  study 
the  history  of  Jesus  seriously,  by  the  truly  critical  and  scientific  method." 

—  The  Christian  Advocate. 

"  It  will  assuredly  become  the  vade  mecum  for  the  class  for  whom  it  is 
particularly  written." —  'The  Evangelist. 

"  Written  by  one  who  is  a  profound  believer  in  the  supernatural,  and 
whose  belief  does  not  in  the  least  prevent  his  application  of  sound  criticism 
and  practical  common  sense  to  the  consideration  of  such  questions  as  the 
miraculous  birth,  and  the  interpretation  of  such  events  as  the  temptation." 

—  The  Outlook. 

"Acuteness,  candor,  and  conspicuous  fidelity  to  its  purpose  are  the 
notable  characteristics  of  this  volume.  ...  Its  claim  to  be  scientific  in 
method  is  fully  justified.  It  is  thoroughly  modern  in  spirit  and  manner, 
.  .  .  with  a  clearness,  completeness,  and  judicial  calmness  which  all 
scholars  must  admire.  The  work  is  admirably  adapted  to  its  end,  the  use 
of  students.  .  .  .  Any  ordinarily  intelligent  layman  will  like  it,  and  it  will 
be  a  useful  book  in  the  Sunday-school  library,  although  it  is  not  in  the 
ordinary  narrative  form."  —  Congregationalist. 

"  A  work  peculiarly  suited  to  the  needs  of  students." 

—  The  Chautauquan. 

THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,   NEW  YORK 


The   Student's   Life   of  Paul 


BY 


GEORGE  H.   GILBERT,  Ph.D.,   D.D. 

Iowa  Professor  of  New   Testament  Literature  and  Interpretation  in 
Chicago   Theological  Seminary 


Cloth.     12mo.     $1.25  net 


"  Clear,  compact,  and  critical."  —  The  Outlook. 

"  The  aim  of  this  book  is  threefold  :  First,  to  present  the 
Simple  and  biography  of  the  great  apostle,  entirely  apart  from 
scientific;  a  study  of  his  theological  teaching;  second,  to 
accessible  present  the  facts  in  as  simple  and  scientific  a 
and  usable  manner  as  possible  without  comment  and  without 
rhetorical  elaboration;  third,  to  present  the  material  in  an 
accessible  and  usable  form.  There  are  full  references  to 
Biblical  sources,  and  abundant  references  to  the  modern  litera- 
ture of  the  subject."  —  The  Examiner. 

"A  volume  that  will  be  of  special  service  to  all  students. 
.  .  .     We  unreservedly  and  heartily  commend  this  volume." 

—  Zi oil's  Herald. 

"  It  is  characterized  by  freshness  of  treatment,  and  intelligent 
use  of  the  latest  literature  ;  ...  its  arrangement  is  admirable, 
the  style  engaging."  —  From  a  review  of  Dr.  Gilbert's  "  Stu- 
dent's Life  of  Paul"  in  the  Christian  Intelligencer. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,   NEW  YORK 


DATE  DUE 


